CIT v. Ajit Kumar Bose

165 ITR 90High Court1987#13552 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 17(3)(i)Section 10(10)Section 10(10AA)Section 10(10B)Section 10(10C)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

keyman insurancesection 89section 17section 10salarysection 139(1)appeal before the tribunalsection 143(2)companyindiapersonnfac

Judgments citing CIT v. Ajit Kumar Bose

Dnyaneshwar Shinde, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1726/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist
Section 10Section 147

…d that this clause is also not applicable. He submitted that the amount received by the assessee is not a compensation but on account of loss of pay. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT vs. Ajit Kumar Bose (1987) 165 ITR 90 (Cal), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that where the conditions of service clearly stipulated that the assessee’s services could be terminated at any time on giving three months notice and there was no obligation on the employer to pay anything to the assessee in connection with the termination, payment made ex-gratia, therefore…

Parna Vasudevaiah, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 456/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule-DR
Section 143(2)Section 17(3)(i)Section 89Section 89(1)

…d that this clause is also not applicable. He submitted that the amount received by the assessee is not a compensation but on account of loss of pay. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT vs. Ajit Kumar Bose (1987) 165 ITR 90 (Cal), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that where the conditions of service clearly stipulated that the assessee’s services could be terminated at any time on giving three months notice and there was no obligation on the employer to pay anything to the assessee in connection with the termination, payment made ex- gratia, therefor…

Gyanesh Chandra Srivastava, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1516/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…hat such amount received by the assessee forms part of income under section 17(3)(i) of the Act. In appeal, the Tribunal considered the case of the assessee in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ajit Kumar Bose 165 ITR 90 and held that the amount received by the assessee on account of loss of his employment, at the instance of the employer closing down its business operations, is severance pay, whatever may be the nomenclature that is used an partakes the character of capital receipt and not taxable in the hands of the assessee. 11. These two decisions are squarely…

Parvez Mukhtar Khan, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1) Aurangabad, Aurangabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1111/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(2)Section 17(3)Section 17(3)(i)Section 89

…at this clause is also not applicable. He submitted that the amount received by the assessee is not a compensation but on account of loss of pay. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT vs. Ajit Kumar Bose (1987) 165 ITR 90 (Cal), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that where the conditions of service clearly stipulated that the assessee’s services could be terminated at any time on giving three months notice and there was no obligation on the employer to pay anything to the assessee in connection with the termination, payment made ex-gratia, therefore…

Ashok Raghunathrao Kulkarni, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 1, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 17(3)Section 89

…hat this clause is also not applicable. 9 He submitted that the amount received by the assessee is not a compensation but on account of loss of pay. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT vs. Ajit Kumar Bose (1987) 165 ITR 90 (Cal), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that where the conditions of service clearly stipulated that the assessee’s services could be terminated at any time on giving three months notice and there was no obligation on the employer to pay anything to the assessee in connection with the termination, payment made ex- gratia, therefor…

Gudipati Srinivasa Ratna, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad10 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kali Kiran Kumar Kovvada, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 10Section 15

…hat such amount received by the assessee forms part of income under section 17(3)(i) of the Act. In appeal, the Tribunal considered the case of the assessee in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ajit Kumar Bose 165 ITR 90 and held that the amount received by the assessee on account of loss of his employment, at the instance of the employer closing down its business operations, is severance pay, whatever may be the nomenclature that is used an partakes the character of capital receipt and not taxable in the hands of the assessee. 11. These two decisions are squarel…

Ajay B. Ghose, Thane vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1720/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleajay B. Ghose Vs. Dcit – Cpc Flat No. 504, Angelo, Post Bag No. 1, Hiranandani Estate, Electronic City, Ghobander Road, Thane Bangaluru – 560500. Maharashtra– 400607. Pan/Gir No. : Aebpg1796A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Gunjan Kakkad. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Mehul B. Jain. DR
Section 143(1)Section 17(3)(i)

…settlement. The fact is very clear that it is the voluntary payment made by the company for loss of employment which cannot be disputed. The Ld.AR supported the submissions with the fallowing judicial decisions as under;- “1. CIT Vs. Ajit Kumar Bose, [1987] 165 ITR 90 2. CIT Vs. Sharda Sinha [2016] 237 Taxman 111 (Delhi) 3. Oberio Hotel (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 903 (SC) 4. Khanna & Annadhanam Vs. CIT [2003] 351 ITR 110 (Delhi) 5. Arunbhai R Naik Vs. ITO [2015] 379 ITR 511 (Guj) M/s Ajay B Ghose, Mumbai 6, Chandrakant Tolia Vs. ACIT [2009] 316 ITR 312 (Madras) 7. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT [2018] 40…