Section 17(3)

Section 17(3) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 17(3), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Hosur Bata Employees Union v Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax High CourtCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  My clients settled a wage dispute and took VRS and compensation for loss of future salary in two instalments. The company deducted TDS on the whole amount without giving s.89 relief. Can we make the employer refund it?
  No — not from the employer. The Madras High Court held that the employer cannot be found at fault for deducting tax at source in the absence of an application in Form 10E under Rule 21A, because s.192(2A) is what obliges the employer to compute and give s.89 relief and it operates only on the particulars the employee furnishes. The Court's remedy was to direct the employees to file returns under s.139(1) within thirty days and the Income Tax Officer to process them under s.143(1) and refund within two months.
• CIT v Pritam Das Narang High CourtHelps taxpayer
  A company withdrew my job offer before I joined and paid me compensation. Is that taxable as salary?
  No. The Delhi High Court held that s.17(3)(iii) presupposes an employment, that is a relationship of employer and employee between the payer and the recipient. Where the offer was withdrawn before the employment began, no such relationship ever existed, and the amount paid for non-commencement of employment was a capital receipt, not taxable as profits in lieu of salary or as income from other sources.
• CIT v Deepak Verma High CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  My employer gave me a lump sum on top of my normal dues when I resigned, described in the letter as a one-off ex gratia. The officer says it is profits in lieu of salary. Is it?
  Not under s.17(3)(i), because clause (i) taxes 'compensation' and a payment the employer makes voluntarily, in its own discretion, with no vested right in the employee, is not compensation. But do not stop there: the Delhi High Court reached that result only because the assessment year was 2001-02, and it said in terms that s.17(3)(iii), inserted with effect from 1 April 2002, 'would squarely cover the nature of payment received by the assessee'. For AY 2002-03 onwards an ex gratia received after cessation of employment is taxable as salary.
• CIT v Smt. Rani Shankar Mishra High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I received a settlement from a foreign state employer for a job I applied for but was never given. The officer says s.17(3)(iii) taxes anything received before joining employment. Does it reach me?
  No. Section 17(3)(iii) presupposes an employment with the person paying: sub-clause (A) covers the period before the assessee joins that employment and sub-clause (B) the period after it ceases. Where there never was and never could have been an employer-employee relationship, the receipt is not profits in lieu of salary at all, and compensation for having been denied the job is a capital receipt.
• CIT v Nagesh Devidas Kulkarni High CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  I took voluntary retirement. Can I claim both the s.10(10C) exemption and s.89 relief on the balance?
  Only for assessment years up to 2009-10. The Bombay High Court held that a voluntary retirement payment is compensation received in connection with the termination of employment and so is 'profits in lieu of salary' under s.17(3), and that relief under s.89 was therefore available on the amount taxed over and above the Rs 5,00,000 exempted by s.10(10C). That was the position for the year before the Court, assessment year 2002-03. From assessment year 2010-11 the two are alternatives by statute: the proviso to s.89 and the third proviso to s.10(10C), both inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010, mean that claiming the s.10(10C) exemption bars s.89 relief on the same receipt, and that taking s.89 relief forfeits the exemption — not only for that year but 'in relation to such, or any other, assessment year'. What survives of this decision is its holding that a voluntary retirement payment is 'profits in lieu of salary' under s.17(3).
• CIT v G.V. Venugopal High CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  I took VRS from a bank and claimed the Rs 5 lakh exemption under section 10(10C). Can I also claim spread-over relief under section 89(1) on the balance?
  Yes, for the years this judgment governs. The Madras High Court held that exemption under section 10(10C) up to Rs 5 lakh and relief under section 89(1) on the balance VRS compensation are two separate benefits, and nothing in the Act barred taking both. The second proviso to section 10(10C) only stops a second exemption under that clause in another assessment year; it says nothing about section 89(1). VRS compensation is a profit in lieu of salary under section 17(3), so section 89(1) applies to it. The Department's appeal was dismissed.
• SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 v Union of India High CourtCuts both ways
  My VRS compensation is being paid to me in instalments over ten years. Does the section 10(10C) exemption still apply, or is it lost once the payments cross into later years?
  It still applies. The Calcutta High Court held that the whole compensation became due when the employee was released under the scheme and was chargeable under section 15(a) at that point, whether paid or not. Spreading the payment over ten years does not turn the later instalments into salary of those later years, so the second proviso to section 10(10C) is not attracted. The exemption up to Rs 5 lakh runs on the compensation component alone. Terminal benefits paid under the same scheme, such as gratuity and leave encashment, are not part of the amount received on voluntary retirement and are not covered.
• Statutory position — s.10(10B): retrenchment compensation, the lesser-of test against s.25F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the second proviso that removes the cap altogether for an approved scheme CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client's factory closed and he was paid retrenchment compensation. How much is exempt, and is there any way to get the whole of it out of tax?
  Section 10(10B) exempts compensation received by a workman at the time of his retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 or under any other Act, rules, orders, notifications, standing orders, award, contract of service or otherwise, but the first proviso caps the exemption at the lower of two figures — the amount calculated under clause (b) of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, and such amount, not being less than fifty thousand rupees, as the Central Government may specify by notification. There is one way to escape the cap entirely: the second proviso disapplies the first where the compensation is received in accordance with a scheme approved by the Central Government having regard to the need for extending special protection to the workmen in the undertaking to which the scheme applies.
• Statutory position — s.17(3): what "profits in lieu of salary" includes, the exemption receipts it carves out, and the limb that catches money paid before employment begins or after it ends CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client received a payment from a former employer that is not gratuity, not retrenchment compensation and not under any VRS. The Assessing Officer says it is profits in lieu of salary. What exactly does s.17(3) cover, and what does it not?
  Section 17(3) has three limbs. Clause (i) covers the amount of any compensation due to or received from an employer or former employer at or in connection with the termination of employment or the modification of its terms and conditions. Clause (ii) covers any payment due to or received from an employer, a former employer or a provident or other fund, but expressly excludes any payment referred to in clause (10), (10A), (10B), (11), (12), (13) or (13A) of section 10, and excludes so much of the payment as consists of the employee's own contributions or interest on them or any sum received under a Keyman insurance policy including bonus allocated on it. Clause (iii) covers any amount due to or received, whether in lump sum or otherwise, by any assessee from any person before his joining any employment with that person or after cessation of his employment with that person.
• Statutory position — s.10(10): the three limbs of the gratuity exemption, the twenty-lakh ceiling set by S.O. 1213(E), and why the ceiling is an aggregate across employers and across years CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client retired last year and received gratuity from two employers in the same year. The Assessing Officer says he can only have one twenty-lakh exemption in total, and has also asked about gratuity he received when he changed jobs in 2014. Is that right, and where does the twenty-lakh figure come from?
  The Assessing Officer is right on both points. Section 10(10) has three separate limbs and only the third carries a Central Government ceiling; that ceiling is twenty lakh rupees, specified by CBDT notification S.O. 1213(E) dated 8 March 2019 in relation to employees who retire, become incapacitated prior to retirement or die on or after 29 March 2018, or whose employment is terminated on or after that date. The first proviso to the clause caps the aggregate exemption where gratuities are received from more than one employer in the same previous year, and the second proviso reduces the ceiling by whatever was left out of total income under the clause in any earlier previous year — so the twenty lakhs is a once-in-a-lifetime cumulative allowance, not a per-employer or per-year one.
• Statutory position — s.89 with Rule 21A and Rule 21AA: the five categories of relief on arrears, the proviso that forfeits relief where the s.10(10C) exemption has been claimed, and what Rule 21AA actually says about Form 10E CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  My client received salary arrears and family pension arrears in one year and has been pushed into a higher slab. What relief is available, how is it computed, and is Form 10E a precondition?
  Section 89 gives relief where an assessee receives a sum in the nature of salary paid in arrears or in advance, or salary for more than twelve months in one financial year, or a payment which under s.17(3) is a profit in lieu of salary, or a sum in the nature of family pension as defined in the Explanation to s.57(iia) paid in arrears, and his total income is on that account assessed at a higher rate; the Assessing Officer must, on an application, grant such relief as may be prescribed. Rule 21A prescribes five different computations depending on which of five categories the payment falls into. On Form 10E, be precise: Rule 21AA says that an assessee entitled to relief under section 89 "may furnish to the person responsible for making the payment referred to in sub-section (1) of section 192" the particulars specified in Form No. 10E — it is expressed as a permission, and it is directed at the employer for the purposes of tax deduction, not in terms as a condition precedent to the relief.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.