35DDA: CIT v. Sony India (P.) Ltd.

356 ITR 468High Court2013#24638 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 359,370 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing 35DDA: CIT v. Sony India (P.) Ltd.

Nelliparambil Gopalan Gangadevi, Ernakulam vs. ITO Ward 1, Aluva

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 996/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 147

…swers to Qs. 1 & 2, being in respect of the issue at hand. The ld. CIT(A) has further placed reliance on the decision by the Tribunal in State Bank of Mysore vs. CIT (reported at 139 ITD 526 (Bang)), since upheld by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court [in [2013] 356 ITR 468 (Kar)], as well as by the Cochin Bench in Krishnan Achary vs. ITO (ITA No. 432/Coch/2018, dated 26.02.2020), wherein exemption has been held as rightly denied in view of the non- satisfaction of the conditions of r. 2BA. In the instant case, none of the conditions, save condition # 1, i.e., regarding age and years of services, is satisfied by the…

Sri.Krishnan Achary, Pathanamthitta vs. The ITO, WD-3, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 432/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 10Section 148

…k of Mysore vs. CIT reported in 139 ITD 526 had held that compliance of Rule 2BA is mandatory for availing the benefit of exemption u/s. 10(10C) of the I.T. Act. The above order of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka (reported in 356 ITR 468). In the instant case, the assessee has failed to produce certificate from the employer (SBI) stating that the ‘exit option scheme’ is eligible for benefit of exemption u/s. 10(10C) of the I.T. Act and is in accordance with the guidelines formulated in Rule 2BA of the I.T. Rules. On the contrary, the certificate issued by the State Bank of Ind…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

…with the conditions of rule 2BA is mandatory only to avail the exemption under section 10(10C) by employees and not for the purposes of deduction under section 35DDA: CIT v. Sony India (P.) Ltd. : 210 Taxman 149 (Del)(HC)(Mag.)  State Bank of Mysore v. CIT: 356 ITR 468 (Kar.)(HC)  18.2 The Learned CIT(DR) on the other hand placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 18.3 We find that an identical issue has been decided by the ITAT in the earlier assessment years in the case of assessee itself and lastly in the appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 (supra), the ITAT has given following finding: 7…