TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MMON JUDGMENT M.M.SUNDRESH, J. All these appeals have been preferred by the appellants laying a challenge to the orders passed in a batch of writ petitions filed in W.P.No.18566 of 2015 etc., dated 17.03.2017. 2. We do not wish to travel much on the facts involved. Suffice it to state that the issue involved in these appeals is with respect to the deduction of TDS on the amount paid and payable to the workmen being the members of the first respondent. The workmen were made entitled for certain payment consequent upon the closure of the Industry. Winding up proceedings were initiated before this Court and an order was accordingly passed by the learned Single Judge in C.P.No.114 of 2003, wherein, it has been held that the payment due....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue has been dealt with by the Division Bench, which is extracted hereunder:- "12. In the meanwhile, there is also claim of the Income Tax Department to deduct TDS out of the amount which is to be paid to the workmen by way of VRS Scheme. It is brought to the notice of the Company Court that deduction of TDS it appears that it may be run up to 4 crores. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, then representing before the Company Court informed that if a representation is given by one of the workmen through their Union the same would be placed before the Central Board of Direct Taxes in this regard for necessary consideration. Since already the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the case on hand would come under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, in which case, the amount quantified is only the Voluntary Retirement payment, we do not subscribe to the said view expressed. Incidentally, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that if it is a case under first proviso to Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, there is a cap with respect to the amount quantified - Rs. 50,000/-. This will only militate against the members of the first respondent. 8. The said contention also, in our considered view, cannot be countenanced. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent, it is a case of the first respondent/writ petitioner that the case would fall under th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....viso under Section 10 (10B) of the IT Act. In terms of clause (2) of first proviso, the ceiling limit is Rs. 5,00,000/-. The second proviso states that the first proviso shall not apply in respect of any compensation received by a workmen in accordance with any scheme, which the Government may, having regard to the need for extending the special protection to the workmen in the undertaking to which such scheme applies and other relevant circumstances, approve in its behalf. The compensation which is received by the workmen would fall within the definition of compensation found in explanation to Section 10(10B). 32. In such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the package having been received by the workmen as co....