Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.54 seconds)Sail Dsp Vr Employees Association 1998 vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 February, 2003
11. We, therefore, on the basis of the scheme and the actual facts that are brought out by the bank itself, do not agree with the stand of the AO or the CIT(A) that the conditions or the guidelines prescribed under Rule 2BA are not complied in the OERS of the RBI. Any statement that it will not fill up the vacancies caused as a result of OERS would have resulted in opposition by the employees themselves as it will be a repressive measure against the labour. It will be of interest to observe the findings of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sail DSP Employees Association 1998 v. Union of India and Ors. supra) where it has opined that Section 10(10C) of the IT Act, 1961 uses the expression "any amount received by an employee... at the time of his voluntary retirement in accordance with any scheme or schemes of voluntary retirement. If a plain literal interpretation of statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result, which the legislature could not have intended, the Court is supposed to modify the language used by the legislature, even to do some violence to it so as to achieve the obvious intention of the legislature and produce a rational construction. An expression used in the statute is not always to be interpreted literally or grammatically. Sometimes it has to be interpreted having regard to the context in which the expression is used and having regard to the object and purpose for which the same is enacted. Section 10(10C) was inserted in order to make voluntary retirement attractive so as to reduce human complements for securing economic viability of certain companies. This object was elaborated by various Departmental circulars and explanatory statements issued from time to time. Similarly, Rule 2BA of the IT Rules, 1962, which was inserted by the IT (Sixteenth Amendment) Rules, 1992, was amended from time to time. All these go to show that this was intended to make voluntary retirement more attractive and beneficial to the employee opting for voluntary retirement. Therefore, this has to be interpreted in a manner beneficial to the optee for voluntary retirement, if there is any ambiguity, Rule 2BA prescribes the limit. Initially it was one and one-half months' salary for each completed year of service since amended to three months' salary for each completed year of service or the salary for the months remaining after voluntary retirement till retirement. This clearly indicates that it is only the compensation part payable on account of cessation of employment, which is the amount intended in Section 10(10C), inasmuch as, on the date an employee opts for voluntary retirement, he is already entitled to the accumulation of the provident fund in his account governed by the Provident Funds Act and the scheme, gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, encashment of leave pay under the Leave Rules and pension payable under the Pension Rules, if there be any. These are all terminal benefits to which an employee is entitled even without the scheme. This entitlement cannot be taken away under any scheme. Therefore, if these amounts are also payable under the scheme, they would not be a component of the compensation for voluntary retirement and are not an amount receivable on account of voluntary retirement. Therefore, the terminal benefits cannot be brought within the scope and ambit of the expression "amount received" used in Section 10(10C).
Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii vs G.V.Venugopal on 6 December, 2004
The sums in question are clearly the part of salary in the form of profits in lieu of salary as defined in Section 17(3) of the Act. These are amounts of compensation received by the employee from the employer in connection with the terms of employment and, therefore, the assessees in question are clearly entitled for relief under Section 89 in accordance with law in respect of the payments that are included in the total income. Further a similar view has been expressed in the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. G.V. Venugopal and the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. P. Surendra Prabhu . The orders of the CIT(A) in granting relief under Section 89 cannot be therefore found fault with. Certain orders wherein they have denied relief under Section 89 also deserve to be reversed on the same reasoning.
Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. vs P. Surendra Prabhu on 21 September, 2005
The sums in question are clearly the part of salary in the form of profits in lieu of salary as defined in Section 17(3) of the Act. These are amounts of compensation received by the employee from the employer in connection with the terms of employment and, therefore, the assessees in question are clearly entitled for relief under Section 89 in accordance with law in respect of the payments that are included in the total income. Further a similar view has been expressed in the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. G.V. Venugopal and the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. P. Surendra Prabhu . The orders of the CIT(A) in granting relief under Section 89 cannot be therefore found fault with. Certain orders wherein they have denied relief under Section 89 also deserve to be reversed on the same reasoning.
Section 17 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 57 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Provident Funds Act, 1925
Sail Dsp Vr Employees Association 1998 vs Union Of India on 20 February, 2003
7A. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, strongly supported the findings of the AO and the learned CIT(A) in the light of the discussions therein. The learned Departmental Representative heavily relied on the opinion of C.C. Chokshi & Co. on the OERS issued by the RBI in support of the Department's stand that the scheme does not comply with the conditions laid down in Section 10(10C) as also the mandatory guidelines spelt out in Rule 2BA of the IT Rules, 1962.
THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
1