2016 (1) TMI 758 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Harbans Singh Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala
Salary computation - whether any benefit or allowance other than dearness allowance is to be included in the basic salary of the assessee for computation of gratuity and leave encashment under Section 10(10) and 10(10AA)? - Held that - The authorities below on appreciation of material on record have concurrently recorded that the computation of benefit of gratuity and leave encashment under Sections 10(10) and 10(10AA) of the Act are to be govern.....
2012 (12) TMI 753 - ITAT, KOLKATA
Smt. Karabi Das Gupta, Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax., Circle-22, Kolkata.
Statutory exemption u/s 10(10C) disallowance as VRS Benefit exceeding T.D.S. certificate amount - Held that - Decided in favour of assessee relying on Sail Dsp Vr Employees Association 1998 Versus Union of India And Others. 2003 (2) TMI 46 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT wherein held that it is a deferred payment of the benefit receivable under the voluntary retirement scheme. Therefore, it would not be payment of salary outside the scope of section 10(10C.....
2011 (5) TMI 442 - ITAT, MUMBAI
Manish Chhabra Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 20(2), Mumbai
Exemption of leave encashment and gratuity - As per the decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. D.P. Malhotra 1997 -TMI - 17389 - BOMBAY High Court , held that since the assessee has resigned from M/s Hygenic Research Institute on 31-12-2004, the assessee is entitled to the exemption of leave encashment u/s 10(10AA)(ii) and gratuity u/s 10(10)(iii) of the Act - However, in the absence of any calculation and the lim.....
2007 (5) TMI 368 - ITAT DELHI
Col. (Retd.) Chandra Kumar Shukla Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle Noida
2005 (6) TMI 36 - GUJARAT High Court
Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Alembic Glass Industries Limited.
1. Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of leave salary paid to the retiring employees did not constitute salary as defined in Explanation 2 to section 40A(5) for the purpose of limiting the expenditure under that section? 2. Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of statutory liability of sales tax, ESI contribution, P.F. contribution, etc., paid after the close of the previous year but before the .....
2004 (12) TMI 32 - ALLAHABAD High Court
CIT Versus Ashok Kumar Dixit, Ved Prakash Gupta, Vijai Pal Singh, and Ram Ratta
Payments received in lieu of leave encashment to the assessee while in service exemption retrospective amendment to section 10(10AA) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Part I) - Tribunal was not justified in granting exemption to the payments received in lieu of leave encashment to the assessee while in service - Tribunal was not justified in not giving effect to the amendment to section 10(10AA) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 198.....
1997 (7) TMI 93 - BOMBAY High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus DP. Malhotra
1993 (4) TMI 33 - MADRAS High Court
K. Gopalakrishnan Versus Central Board Of Direct Taxes And Others
Exemption U/S 10(10) And U/s. 10(10aa), Exemptions, Government Employees And Private Sector Employees, Gratuity
1990 (11) TMI 217 - ITAT MADRAS-B
RK. Ambady. Versus Income-Tax Officer.
Advertisement, Publicity And Sales Promotion
1989 (11) TMI 77 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
SP. Banerjee. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax.
Assessment Year, Leave Salary, Provident Fund
1989 (5) TMI 80 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Income-Tax Officer. Versus Manubhai K. Mehta.
Approved Superannuation Fund, Assessment Year, Leave Salary
1988 (2) TMI 101 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
INCOME TAX OFFICER. Versus VJ. PAYMASTER.
......s amount received by the assessee by allowing the use of parking lot at a fixed rate of compensation. Such income is, therefore, rightly taxable as income from other sources. The second cross objection is also rejected. 15. In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department are allowed, while the cross objections by the assessee are dismissed.
1986 (6) TMI 67 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
INCOME TAX OFFICER. Versus CAPT. SS. DHILLON.
......e. That type of case would fit in the words used in sub-cl. (1) of s. 10 (10AA) that may be retirement otherwise than on superannuation. We are of the opinion that resignation from a contract service is not envisaged in s. 10 (10AA) (i) or (ii). We therefore, allow the departmental appeal, set aside the order of the AAC and restore that of the ITO.
1985 (12) TMI 112 - ITAT DELHI-D
INCOME TAX OFFICER. Versus VIRENDER KUMAR OBEROI.
......to say that the reliance of the Revenue on the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Karnataka High Court in Patil Vijay Kumar and Ors. vs.Unionof India and Anr. (1985) 48 CTR (Ker) 41 (1985) 151 ITR 48 (Ker) is of no help to the Revenue, since the facts there were distinguishable because there the employees continued to be in service and have not retired.
1984 (12) TMI 24 - MADRAS High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus RJ. Shahney
......e of various kinds. It may be on superannuation or it may be voluntary. If there is any voluntary retirement from service, we are satisfied that the provisions of section 10(10AA) would apply. Therefore, no question of law could be said to arise out the order of the Tribunal. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.