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.....
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 .....
2007 (5) TMI 368 - ITAT DELHI
Col. (Retd.) Chandra Kumar Shukla Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle Noida
........... of exemption in the case of death-cum-retirement gratuity that the Second Proviso was relevant only for calculating the overall monetary ceiling limit. (c) Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahim Patram (P.) Ltd. v. UOI 2007 (3) SCALE 584 wherein the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court had emphasized the need for a strict construction of tax statutes and the necessity of not subjecting a person to tax without there being conditions existing for such liability within the letter of the law. We find that all the aforesaid decisions support the plea of the assessee and the interpretation of the provisions of section 10(10AA) as sought to be made by the assessee which we have already extracted above and with which we agree. We therefore hold that the assessee rsquo s claim for exemption under section 10(10AA) as made has to be allowed. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed.
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.....
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 payment.....
1997 (7) TMI 93 - BOMBAY High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus DP. Malhotra
........... e entitled to the benefit of the said clause to the extent mentioned therein. We are supported in our above opinion by the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. R. J. Shahney 1986 159 ITR 160. In that case also the assessee had resigned and retired from employment. The contention of the Revenue was that since the words whether on superannuation or otherwise qualified retirement, unless it was a case of retirement from service on attaining a particular age, or some other reason, a case of resignation would not be taken in. Repelling this contention of the Revenue, the Madras High Court held The retirement may be 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. In view of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
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
........... een drafted differently. Further, as pointed out earlier, the Legislature was aware that the schemes in force in the private sector in some cases entitled the employees to more than 30 days earned leave for every year of actual service and that it was only with a view to bringing those schemes in line with the scheme in force in the Central Government that Explanation (i) was introduced. Thus, Explanation (i) has a limited scope for application. It will get activated only in those cases where the earned leave entitlement is more than 30 days, and that too to limit such entitlement to 30 days. 9. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we hold that the CIT was not justified in interpreting the said Explanation the way he did. We consequently hold that the recourse taken by him to section 263 of the Act was not validly taken. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order under section 263 and restore that of the ITO on this issue. 10. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed
1989 (11) TMI 77 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
SP. Banerjee. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax.
Assessment Year, Leave Salary, Provident Fund
........... count in which he used deposit the salary a little earlier. He simply issued the cheque from Canara Bank because there he enjoyed the cheque facility. There is no controversy about the fact that the assessee also had not kept water-tight compartment of his resources for meeting his various commitments like family expenses, current repairs and investments eligible for deduction under section 80C and investments not eligible for deduction, etc. As a matter of fact, in order to spend his retired life, he had made investments earlier in units introduced by Unit Trust of India in September 1984 from the balance held in his savings bank account with Canara Bank. Simply because technically speaking the money was not withdrawn by the assessee out of the funds accumulated out of salary, it could not militate against the assessee and the benefit under section 80C was to be allowed. The assessee s contention, therefore, in respect of both the grounds are accepted. The appeal is allowed.
1989 (5) TMI 80 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Income-Tax Officer. Versus Manubhai K. Mehta.
Approved Superannuation Fund, Assessment Year, Leave Salary
........... und that there was no exemption/deduction for leave salary under the Act. The A.A.C. has allowed the assessee s claim on the ground that the assessee has received that amount as superannuation benefit which was covered under section 10(10AA). 6. The learned departmental representative pointed out that the exemption could be granted for payment of leave salary in respect of period of earned leave at the employee s credit at the time of retirement, whether on superannuation or otherwise . He submitted that resignation was not covered by this expression. The assessee s counsel relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. R.J. Shahney 1986 159 ITR 160. According to this decision the provisions of section 10(10AA) are applicable even in case of voluntary retirement on account of resignation. Therefore, following this decision, we hold that the exemption is available to the assessee. This ground is also rejected. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
1988 (2) TMI 101 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
INCOME TAX OFFICER. Versus VJ. PAYMASTER.
........... ue assigned to it and therefore it cannot be taxed under s. 22. Income of a portion of property cannot be taxed and, since it is in the nature of income from house property, it cannot be taxed as income from other sources. In this cross objection, the assessee appears to be begging the question. Having first stated that since there is no separate assessable value it cannot be assessed as income from property, he goes on to state that since it is in the nature of income from house property it cannot be taxed as income from other sources. Such compensation, again, is not specifically exempted under any of the provisions of s. 10. It is 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.
........... /w superannuation has a clear meaning that a person retires after completing a period of service which entitles him to certain retirement benefits like pension, gratuity etc.. The section, however, envisages retirement other than the superannuation. However, it is not the same that a resignation from the contract service would fit in the words retirement otherwise than on superannuation, because resignation and retirement are not the same thing. It is possible to envisage a service under the contract where superannuation may be at the age of 50 years or so and one may be entitled to retire, say, after putting in 5/10 years of service. 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.
........... d on the basis of the average salary drawn by the employee during the period of 10 months immediately proceeding his retirement whether on super-annuation or otherwise or 30,000 rupees, which ever is less shall not be included in computation. On the facts of present assessee rsquo s case the assessee retired form service, qua his then employers Cheroi Hotel, since he left India on an ILO assignment and the period involving leave encashment being 58 and a half days, s. 10(10AA) of the IT Act comes into play and exemption is warranted on facts and in law. The ground as also the appeal by the Revenue fails, but before parting, we like 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
........... ), the payment received by an employee as cash equivalent of leave salary in respect of the period of earned leave to his credit at the time of his retirement whether on superannuation or otherwise, shall not be included in computing the total income. In this case, the assessee resigned and retired from the employment. Learned counsel for the Revenue sought to contend that since the words Whether on superannuation or otherwise qualifies retirement, unless it is a case of retirement from service on attaining a particular age, or on some other reason, a case of resignation will not take in. We are unable to agree. The retirement may be 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.