Income Tax Appeal No.53 of 2008. Case: Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Koodathil Kallyatan Ambujakshan. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Income Tax Appeal No.53 of 2008 |
| Counsel | B M Chatterjee, P P Bhosale, Panjabrao Naik, Mandar Vaidya |
| Judges | F.I. Rebello and K.U. Chandiwal, JJ. |
| Issue | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 10(10C), 89, 89(1) and 260A(7); Right to Information Act; Income Tax Rules, 1962 - Rules 2BA and 21A |
| Citation | 2008 (219) CTR (Bom) 80, 2009 (309) ITR 113 |
| Judgement Date | July 04, 2008 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
F.I. Rebello, J.
Revenue has preferred this appeal on the following questions:
(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon ble Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount received by the assessee under Optional Early Retirement Scheme of RBI is eligible for exemption under Section
(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon ble Tribunal, Mumbai, was justified in interpreting Rule 2BA in favour of assessee against the established norms of interpretation of the rules?
(c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing relief to the assessee under Section
(d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing relief to the assessee under Section
Appeal admitted on the questions of law as formulated above.
On behalf of Revenue it is sought to be submitted that the employees who had taken benefit of the scheme framed by RBI are not entitled to the benefits under Section
On the other hand on behalf of the assessee their learned counsel submits that a scheme framed by RBI satisfies all the requirements of both Section
For the purpose of answering the issues in controversy, we may refer to Section
(10C) any amount received or receivable by an employee of-
(i) a public sector company; or
(ii) any other company; or
(iii) an authority established under a Central, State or provincial Act; or....
on his voluntary retirement or termination of his service, in accordance with any scheme or schemes of voluntary retirement or in the case of a public sector company referred to in Sub-clause (i), a scheme of voluntary separation, to the extent such amount does not exceed five lakh rupees.
Rules have been framed and we are concerned with Rule 2BA. The relevant portion of the rule reads as under:
...at the time of his voluntary retirement or voluntary separation shall be exempt under Clause (10C) of Section
(i) it applies to an employee who has completed 10 years of service or completed 40 years of age;
(ii) it applies to all employees (by whatever name called) including workers and executives of a company or of an authority or of a cooperative society, as the case may be, excepting directors of a company or of a co-operative society;
(iii) the scheme of voluntary retirement or voluntary separation has been drawn to result in overall reduction in the existing strength of the employees;
(iv) the vacancy caused by the voluntary retirement or...
To continue reading
Request your trial