9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut by the Board under letter F.No.200/34/2009/ITA.I dated 06/10/2009. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A), Kolhapur, erred in holding that the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the claim of exemption u/s.10(10C) and further allowing assessee s appeal on this ground ignoring the fact that there is no fulfilment of legal requirement laid down under Rule 2BA of the I.T.Rules, 1962 for its admissibility. 3. The appellant prays that monetary limits specified under Instruction No.3 of 2011 may not be applied to the present case as the exemption claimed u/s.10(10C) by the assessee was disallowed in the light of specific Instructions in this regard by the Board under letter F.No.200/34/2009/ITA. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of the appellant with reference to the facts of the case. A similar issue had come up before me in the case of Shri Vijay Ganpatrao Patil in appeal No. KOP/255/09-10 dated 16/06/2011 for assessment year 2007-08 wherein it was decided as under: I have considered the submissions of the appellant with reference to the facts of the case. I have also gone through the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s Koodathil Kallyatan Ambujakshan (2008) 219 CTR 80. In this case the Honourable High Court of Bombay held that the object in enacting section 10(1OC) of the Act was to reduce employee strength so that unwanted personnel could seek voluntary retirement thereby enabling the public sector to achieve' the tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation scheme is not in conformity with the requirement of Rule 2BA. In view of these decision read along with the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Koodathil Kallyatan Ambujakshan (supra) cited by the appellant, it is held in the appellant's case that the assessing officer was not justified in rejecting the claim of exemption under section 10(1OC) of the Act. In View of the above, it is held that the assessing officer was not justified in rejecting the claim of exemption under section 1O(1OC). The appeal on this ground is therefore, allowed. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the decision of the Assessing Officer while the assessee, through written submissions, pointed out that si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
