NIRMALA RANI L/H OF SH. AZAD SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD -1, , PANCHKULA

ITA 452/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 November 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)25 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the compensation received on forced retrenchment under VRS is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also allowed relief under Section 89(1) for the taxable portion of gratuity.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(10B) for compensation received on forced retrenchment under VRS. The Assessing Officer denied this claim, and the CIT(A) upheld the denial. The assessee argued that the compensation was eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) based on previous tribunal decisions.

What were the issues?

Whether compensation received on forced retrenchment under VRS is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B), and whether relief under Section 89(1) is admissible for the taxable portion of gratuity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(10B),Section 10(10C),Section 89(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 79 Taxmann.com 298
    79 Taxmann.com 298 · 2017 · HC
    6 citing
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “SMC”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: VIRTUAL MODE BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Nirmla Rani Legal Heir of Shri Azad Vs. The ITO Singh Ward-1, C/o Dhiman Bansal & Associates, 68, Panchkula Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore-134102 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AJBPS8427P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, CA Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26/11/2024

Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. :

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Hyderabad dt. 27/03/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-

18.2.

In the present appeal, Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the learned ADDL/JCIT (A)-3 Hyderabad is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2 The learned ADDL/JCIT (A) erred has erred in having not considering the additional claim for exemption u/s 10(10B) of compensation amounting to Rs. 21,33,510/- (Rs. 26,33,510 - Rs. 5,00,000) received on forced retrenchment under

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 10(10B)

All 1,316 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(10B) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →