9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40 years. The second exit option scheme of the State Bank of India was introduced to reduce the staff. It was just impossible to continue the new environment of computerisation applied to the workers and officers. The scheme has resulted in overall reduction of the employees. The assessee has furnished the declaration that he has not accepted any commercial employment in any company or concern belonging to the same management. Thus, on the facts, the first appellate authority has concluded that all the conditions laid down in rule 2BA of the Income-tax Rules are fulfilled. The question asked is no more res integra in view of CIT v. Koodathil Kallyatan Ambujakshan [2008 (7) TMI 259 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein ruled that the Central Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. The said order of the first appellate authority is confirmed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. The order of the first appellate authority as confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are questioned in this appeal. 3. The Department has raised the following two questions of law : (i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in not considering the fact that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in ignoring e-circular on the 'exit option' scheme issued by the State Bank of India,' Corporate Centre, Mumbai, wherein, as per paragraph 10, it is clearly mentioned that no exemption of ex gratia from Income-tax under section 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is intended in that sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty is confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In addition to the same, any provision giving the benefit to the assessee generally will be interpreted in favour of the assessee generally. 5. In respect of the second question of law, as raised by the Department, is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Koodathil Kallyatan Ambujakshan [2009] 309 ITR 113 (Bom). In the said judgment, the Bombay High Court has ruled that the Central Board of Direct Taxes clarification based on the RBI's letter stating that the receipts under the voluntary retirement scheme did not qualify for exemption under section 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act is not binding on the courts. The said judgment is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
