CIT v. Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre (CITU) vs. Government of India

151 DTR 185Reported decision2017#22691 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre (CITU) vs. Government of India

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No.1516/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 Gyanesh Chandra Srivastava cuke The ITO, M-804, 8th Floor, Vrinda Vs. Ward 1(3), Garden, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AVOPS3517K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate. jktLo dh vksjls…

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

…essee within the definition of compensation as per explanation to section 10(10B) of the Act and in the light of decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre (CITU) vs. Government of India (2017) 151 DTR 185 held the issue in favour of the assessee. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ajay B. Ghosh vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1720/Mum/2021, dated 15/11/2021. Page 3 of 6 7. Learned DR submitted that the impugned order is a well reasoned order and the assessee did not produce any material to the contrary t…

Sh. Surendra Laad, 738-A, Rk Puram, Sector A, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 270A(1)

…. Hence, such compensation is exempt u/s 10(10B) and not u/s 10(10C). 3. In this connection reliance is placed on the decision of Single Bench of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre (CITU) Vs. Govt. of India (2017) 151 DTR 185 (PB 16-28). In this case also,the Department of Heavy Industry approved the implementation of VRS package for the employees of HPF at 2007 notional pay scales as mentioned at Pg 4 of the order (PB 19). The Sh. Surendra Laad vs. ITO Hon’ble High Court after considering the entire scheme and object & intent of the scheme, at Para 31 held as under:…