Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.33 seconds)

John Deere India Pvt. Ltd.,, Pune vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, on 17 May, 2017

Similarly, in Johnson p John v. Dy. Commissioner, KVS & 2 Others (OA 457/11), the Emakulam Bench had considered the same matter and allowed the OA. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP(CA(}597/13(z) dt. 13.8.2013 had confirmed the said order and it has become final. The applicants OA Nos.1076/19, 1139/19, 1140/19, 1249/19, 1141/19 and 1/2020 are''smployees who had not given any option to continue in the CPF Scheme. As per the Scheme, employees who had not given option to continue in CPF, will be deemec: to have come under the GPF (Pension) Scheme from the date of introduction. The mainly rely on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in K.Subramanivs'ยป Commissioner (reported in 2017 STPL 9496 Madras). According to them, they are also similarly placed persons as the applicant in that case and they are also entitled to get the benefit of GPF (Pension) Scheme. We find no reason to deny the benefit given in the above case to the applicants herein. |
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

S.V.Nagarajan (Dead) Thr. Lrs. vs Union Of India on 11 February, 2020

22. We had heard both sides and perused the decisions produced in support of the applicant's case. It is seen that a similar matter came up before this Bench in V.Thyagarajan v. Union of India & Others (OA 1094/2013) and it was decided in favour of the applicant holding that when the applicant was appointed directly, only GPF Pension Scheme was available and hence he is entitled to get the benefit of the said scheme.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1