• Follow
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com   

Income Tax Case Laws - Section: 10(10AA)

Home Case Index Income Tax Sections List
Filter:
Cases for Section: 10(10AA)
Showing 1 to 15 of 15 Records
 

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 governed by the definition of salary as per Rule 2(h) Part A, Fourth Schedule. Learned counsel for the assessee was not able to demonstrate that the approac ....... - .......


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). The characteristic cannot be changed because of stretching over the period of payment of dues under the scheme - against revenue. - Claim u/s 10(10 ....... - .......


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 limit as provided by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette as mentioned in the respective sub-sections, are of the view that the ....... - .......


2007 (5) TMI 368 - ITAT DELHI

Col. (Retd.) Chandra Kumar Shukla Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle Noida

....... - ...... 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. 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 due date for filing of return of income under section 139(1) was an allowable deduction in the AY 1984-85 when the proviso to section 43B was inserted ....... - .......


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 ....... - .......


1997 (7) TMI 93 - BOMBAY High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus DP. Malhotra

....... - ...... ing 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.

....... - ...... 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.

....... - ...... nits 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.

....... - ...... 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.

....... - ...... s. 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.

....... - ...... 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.

....... - ...... n 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

....... - ...... e 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.


 
   
 
 
1
 

what is new what is new

Latest Updates

Featured

Subscription

Experts

More Options

Communication




|| About us || Contact us || Feed Back || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map || ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Website