GUDIPATI SRINIVASA RATNA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee on account of loss of employment due to company closure partakes the character of a capital receipt and is not taxable. The Tribunal followed previous decisions in similar cases.
What were the facts?
The assessee received Rs. 44,88,453/- as a one-time settlement payment (ex-gratia) upon the closure of his employer, Instrumentation Ltd., Kota, and subsequent forced VRS. The Assessing Officer allowed an exemption of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 10(10C) and taxed the balance.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-gratia payment received by the assessee due to forced VRS upon company closure is a capital receipt and fully exempt from tax, or taxable beyond the Rs. 5 lakhs limit under Section 10(10C).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 10(10C),Section 10(10B),Section 17(3)(i)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Ajit Kumar Bose7 citing165 ITR 90 · 1987 · HC
- 3 citing
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY
PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 08/11/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Gudipati Srinivasa Ratna (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2018-19, assessee preferred this appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and he was employed with Instrumentation Ltd., Kota ILK. Ministry or Union Cabinet decided-to windup ILK on 30-11-2016. Assessee is ceased to be employee of ILK with effect from 18/04/201
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 10(10C)
- Preeti Dubey, Jhansi vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(5), JhansiITA 439/AGR/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Preeti Dubey, Jhansi vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(5), JhansiITA 438/AGR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Preeti Dubey, Jhansi vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(5), JhansiITA 439/AGR/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Preeti Dubey, Jhansi vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(5), JhansiITA 438/AGR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Makarand Prabhakar Abhyankar, Mumbai vs ITO, Circle 1, KolhapurITA 1497/PUN/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026