9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the compensation from the employer bank, was entitled to exemption u/s.10(10C) even though the scheme was not in conformity with the requirement of Rule 2BA - the view taken by the AO while allowing the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s.10(10C) in the assessments framed u/s.143(3) was a possible view and the CIT was not justified in treating the assessments as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue – thus, the order of the CIT set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No.3120/Mum/2012, ITA No.3122/Mum/2012, ITA No.3468/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 10-8-2012 - Shri P. M. Jagtap And Shri Amit Shukla,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Anil Sathe For the Respondent : Ms. Kusum Ingle ORDER Per P. M. Ja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of requirement of Rule 2BA according to which the vacancy caused by the voluntary retirement was not to be filled-up in order to avail the benefit of sec.10(10C). It was also noted that as per the relevant provision of clause 14 of the Staff Exit Scheme of SBI, the exit option was aimed at improving the level of moral in the bank and not at rightsizing and the bank was to have discretion to fillup the vacancies caused by release of officers under the exit option. After taking note of Rule 2BA as well as the provisions of clause 14 of Staff Exit Scheme, the Hon ble Bombay High Court held that if the Petitioners were aggrieved by the said clause or the rule, it would be open to them to independently pursue whatever remedy they may have at la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... independently pursue whatever remedy they may have at law. 5. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has cited various decisions of the Tribunal wherein a similar issue relating to the assessee s claim for exemption u/s.10(10C) has been considered and decided on merit in favour of the assessee. In one of such decisions rendered in the case of Pandya Vinodchandra Bhogilal vs. ITO 45 DTR 105, Ahemadabad Bench of the ITAT held that claim for exemption u/s.10(10C) cannot be denied on the ground that the scheme of Voluntary retirement framed by the employer is not in accordance with the Rule 2BA. For this conclusion, the Ahmedabad Bench relied on Third Member decision of the Kolkata Bench of the ITAT in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
