2015 (11) TMI 868

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t cannot differentiate between different assessees. This was in the context of a High Court order. The same principle should apply in case of jurisdictional Tribunal order. We are of the view that it is not open to the Revenue to pick and chose the Assessee's against whom they would filed appeal in this Court. The law should be uniformly applied, its application cannot change, depending upon the person affected. - Decided in favour of assessee.
M.S. SANKLECHA AND G.S. Kulkarni, JJ. For The Appellant : N.N. Singh For The Respondent : Mandar Vaidya ORDER 1. This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 29th August, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the ITAT) for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion 10(10C) of the Act by placing reliance upon the circular dated 8th October 2009 issued by the Central Board for Direct Tax (CBDT) wherein it has been observed as under: "It has been observed that the State Bank of Patiala and State Bank of India are offering Exit Option Schemes to employees of various grades in the management of the Bank. These schemes clearly lay out that they are not eligible for deduction under section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Some of the employees who have availed of these schemes are nevertheless claiming exemption of the benefits received from such scheme under section 10(10C)" 5. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], by order dated 16th June, 2011 set aside the orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of time, the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in CIT v. Surya Herbal Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 300, according to him was not available. We are unable to understand the above submission as the the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Surya Herbal (supra) on 29th August, 2011 i.e. much before its decision on 8th November, 2011 in Javerilal D. Chhajed (supra). Thus, even though the decision of the Apex Court in Surya Herbal (supra) was very much available, Revenue chose to accept the order of the Pune Bench Tribunal in Javerilal D. Chhajed (supra) and not challenge the same before this Court. 8. In the above view, without going into the other contentions, (although prima facie we are of the view that the Respondent - Assessee is entitled t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X