9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igible for exemption u/s 10(10)(i) - assessee was held to be not covered u/s 10(10)(ii) as he did not receive any gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - HELD THAT:- Delhi bench of the tribunal in Shri Ram Kanwar Rana vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar [ 2016 (6) TMI 687 - ITAT DELHI] has allowed exemption in respect of the arrears of gratuity and arrears of leave encashment and dismissed the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial of exemption in respect of the amount received by the assessee towards arrears of gratuity at ₹ 4,82,880/- and arrears of leave encashment amounting to ₹ 1,95,060/-. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee was an employee of Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar (hereinafter called CCS HAU) and retired from service before 24. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO opined that the extended benefit of exemption was not available to the assessee. He jettisoned the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 10(10) of the Act and held that the correct sections applicable were 10(10)(iii) and section 10(10AA)(ii). Since the assessee was an employee of CCS HAU, the AO held that such employees could not be termed as Government employees and, hence, the benefit u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, the Notification issued by the CBDT enhancing the limit of ₹ 10 lac on gratuity u/s 10(10)(iii) was held to be not applicable. The assessee is aggrieved against the confirmation of denial of exemption made by the ld. CIT(A). 4. I have heard the ld. AR and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Shri Ram Kanwar Rana vs. ITO, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
