SUNIL VISHNU GAIKWAD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 42(3)(4), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, held that the ex-gratia payment was salary received in advance and not compensation for loss of office. The assessee is entitled to relief under Section 89(1) of the Act.
What were the facts?
The assessee received an ex-gratia amount of Rs. 28,91,094/- from M/s. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. upon the company's closure. The assessee claimed relief under Section 89(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The appeal was filed with a delay of 479 days.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-gratia payment received by the assessee is to be treated as salary in advance or compensation for loss of employment, and consequently, whether relief under Section 89(1) of the Income-tax Act is admissible.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 89(1),Section 21A(1)(c),Section 21A(1)(a),Section 234C,Section 244A,Section 17(3)(i),Section 192,Section 7,Section 17
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai-46/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 15.03.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
P a g e | 2 A.Y. 2017-18 Sunil Vishnu Gaikwad
“1. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming stand of A.O. about relief u/s.89(1) of Income Tax Act
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 89(1)
- Trinath Mandal, Koriya vs ITO, Ward-1(1), BilaspurITA 717/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Vaishali Baban Bhosale, Pune vs The ITO Ward 10(1), PuneITA 2067/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed13 Aug 2026AY 2018-19
- Shri Venkataraman Krishnan, Chennai vs DCIT, Non Corp. Circle-19(1), ChennaiITA 2652/CHNY/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed6 Aug 2026AY 2021-22
- Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Kashipur vs Income Tax Officer, KashipurITA 278/DDN/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2026AY 2016-17
- Tanaji Baburao Bhosale, Pune vs ITO Ward 10(1), PuneITA 1784/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026