PARVEZ MUKHTAR KHAN,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

ITA 1111/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 September 2024AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)26 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the payment received by the assessee was a voluntary, ex-gratia compensation for the loss of employment due to the plant closure, not in lieu of salary. Therefore, it is a capital receipt and not taxable under Section 17(3)(i).

What were the facts?

The assessee, a former employee of Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., received a golden handshake payment of Rs. 77,41,038/- due to the company's decision to close its manufacturing plant. The Assessing Officer treated this amount as taxable income and withdrew the deduction claim under Section 89.

What were the issues?

Whether the golden handshake payment received by the assessee is a capital receipt or taxable income in lieu of salary. Whether the assessee was denied a fair opportunity for representation by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 89,Section 17(3)(i)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 17.09.2024Pronounced: 27.09.2024

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal, for assessment years 2019-

2020 arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/

250/2023-24/1062985607(1), dated 20.03.2024, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

“the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee raises the following substantive

grounds in the instant appeal :

2 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024

1.

The Learned CIT(A) has erred by not giving sufficient &

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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

All 65 judgments and leading authorities on Section 89 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →