Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 2999 2009 SLD 2999 (2009) 316 ITR 235
Madras High Court
TAX CASE APPEAL Nos. 535 TO 538 OF 2008 AUGUST 25, 2008
K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN AND P. P. S., JANARTHANA RAJA, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of IncomE tax

v.

S. Padmanabhan*

Law:

Section:

Section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court - Appeal to Where tax amount involved was Rs. 1,62,212, which was less than monetary limit prescribed by CBDT for filing appeal before High Court and revenue had not made out a case that issue involved in appeal before Tribunal, fell within exceptions provided in circular, appeal was not maintainable . [Assessment year : 2004-05] [In favour of assessee] CIT v. S. Naini [2009] 316 ITR 232 (Mad.) CIT v. S. Padmanabhan [2009] 316 ITR 235 (Mad) In view of the decisions in CWT v. S. Annamalai [2002] 258 ITR 675 (Mad.), CIT v. Associated Electrical Agencies [2007] 295 ITR 496 (Mad.), where the tax amount involved was Rs. 1,62,212, which was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeal before the High Court and the revenue had not made out a case that the issue involved in the appeal before the Tribunal, fell within the exceptions provided in the circular, appeal was not maintainable. CASE REVIEW CWT v. S. Annamalai [2002] 258 ITR 675 (Mad); CIT v. Associated Electrical Agencies [2007] 295 ITR 496 (Mad); CGT v. Executors and Trustees of the Estate of Late Ambalal Sarabhai [1988] 170 ITR 144 (SC);CIT v. Digvijay Singh [2007] 292 ITR 314 (Mp); CIT v. Zoeb Y. Topiwala[2006] 284 ITR 379 (Bom) and CIT v. Camco Colour Co. [2002] 254 ITR 565 (Bom) followed and relied upon. Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman for the Appellant. B.V. Rajan for the Respondent. JUDGMENT K. Raviraja Pandian, J.- In these appeals, the Revenue assails the order of the Tribunal granting the relief of deduction under section 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the assessees, who have severed their service connection from their employer-the Reserve Bank of India, under a scheme framed in the year 2003 called "Optional Early Retirement Scheme (OERS) 2003". 2. The assessees were employees of the Reserve Bank of India and had during the year retired under the Optional Early Retirement Scheme floated by the Reserve Bank of India. The assessees, in their returns of income for the assessment year 2004-05, claimed exemption under section 10(10C), out of the compensation received under the said scheme. On a perusal of Form 16 submitted by the…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492