“compensation on termination”

SANDEEP VANJARE,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT COMM. OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-34(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Sandeep Vanjare, Asst. Commissioner Of Room-105, Madhusudan Income Tax, Chawl-135, Circle-34(3), Vs. P.B. Marg, Room No.832, Worli, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 013 Bkc, Bandra East, Pan: Abvpv8834H Maharashtra- 400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent)

response to the show cause notice, submitted his reply and claimed that the assessee has received salary in advance but not any compensation on termination and the determination of nature of income is based on the supplementary agreement dated 15.12.2016 executed between the assessee and its employer M/s. Century Textiles ... assessee, before the AO, also submitted the relevant documents/evidence and tried to justify the amount received as salary received in advance but not compensation on termination. The AO, though considered the aforesaid claim of the assessee, but not found acceptable and ultimately treated the amount received by the Assessee from

SBM CHEMICALS & INSTRUMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(1)(2), MUMBAI

behalf of VMI. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not properly interpreting terms of settlement agreement which provided payment of compensation on termination to the appellant being payment for the Goodwill for transfer of the benefits of the business from the clientele list developed since ... paper-book) filed by the Appellant. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the payment received by the Appellant was nothing but the compensation for termination of agency. The Appellant was acting as agent for VMI in India for the purpose of sale of machinery of VMI in India and earned

SHRI VASUDEO BABAJI CHINDARKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-34(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed

return of income declaring income of Rs.47,03,750/-. During the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal, the assessee had received compensation on termination of his employment. The assessee was working with Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. The said company declared Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) as the company ... assessee therein. In the said case, the assessee was also an employee of Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. and had received lumpsum ex-gratia compensation on termination of service. The assessee therein had claimed relief under section 89(1) r.w.r 21A(2). The Assessing Officer / CIT(A) determined relief by applying

SURYAJI SHRIRAM PATEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 34(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

relief so worked out comes to Rs.15,96.688/-, However, the computation of relief u/s 89(1) of the Act in the case of compensation on termination of employment, is as per Sub-rule (4) of Rule 21A of the lncome Tax Rules (Annexure III of Form 10E). 3.10. Rule ... rule (4);..." 3.11. The admissibility of assessee's claim of treating the amount paid by the Company as 'salary in advance' or as 'compensation on termination of employment' would determine whether the mode of computation of relief u/s,89(1) falls under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule

SANJAY LAXMAN KANGUDE,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 34(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

amounts to ₹.16,46,076/-. However, the computation of relief u/s 89(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the case of compensation on termination of employment, is as per Sub-rule (4) of Rule 21A of the I.T. Rules (Annexure III of form 10E) 7. The Assessing Officer observed ... different in terms of “salary in 7 ITA.NO. 1860/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2017-18) Shri Sanjay Laxman Kangude advance” or as “compensation of termination of employment” would determine whether the mode of computation of relief u/s. 89(1) falls under sub rule (2) or sub rule (4) of rule

SHRI RAJESH SHANTARAM CHAVAN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR -34(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

worked out, amounts to ₹.16,74,250/-. However, the computation of relief u/s 89(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961 in the case of compensation on termination of employment, is as per Sub-rule (4) of Rule 21A of the I.T.Rules (Annexure III of form 10E) 7 ITA.NO. 1841/MUM/2021 ... Rule 21A the mode of computation of relief u/s. 89(1) are different in terms of “salary in advance” or as “compensation of termination of employment” would determine whether the mode of computation of relief u/s. 89(1) falls under sub rule (2) or sub rule (4) of rule