It could not be the intention of the legislature that the benefit of s. 10 (10C) should be restricted in the case of employees who retired before 1.4.2004 only to the sum actually received while employees who retired subsequently will get the benefit also in respect of amounts payable in subsequent financial years. Accordingly, the amendment is was clarificatory and curative in nature and applies even to employees who retired prior to 1.4.2004 and received VRS in installments.
The Income-tax Act is a special law. The nature of the remedy provided therein are such that the legislature intended it to be a complete code by itself which alone should govern the several matters provided by it. The scheme of the Income-tax Act supports the conclusion that the time limit prescribed u/s 260A to file an appeal before the High Court is absolute and unextendable by court u/s 5 of the Limitation Act and the limitation cannot be extended by invoking the provisions of s. 5 of the Limitation Act. Since the appeals were filed beyond the prescribed period of 120 days they had to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
It is beyond comprehension how expenditure incurred on the project itself can be disallowed on the ground that it was incurred prior to setting up the project office. When computing the income of the project as a whole including that part which relates to the period anterior to the setting up of the project office, there can be no question of not allowing such expenditure which is relatable to the period prior to the setting up of the project. If the expenditure is identifiable with the project, it has to be allowed as a deduction under the matching concept.
The fact that the proviso to s. 112 uses the words ‘before giving effect to the second proviso to s. 48’ does not mean that the benefit of the lower rate can be given only to those cases eligible for the indexation benefit. Even non-residents who are not eligible for indexation are eligible for the lower rate of 10%.