Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax -Ii, Patna v....

Commissioner Of Income Tax -Ii, Patna v. Heard Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad For The

High Court 19 May 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · patnahcucisdb94
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax -Ii, Patna v. Heard Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad For The
Date of order
19 May 2011
Assessment year(s)
2004-05
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax -Ii, Patna v. Heard Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad For The, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.433 of 2007 1. Commissioner Of Income Tax -II, Patna. 2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Patna --- Assessing Officers/Appellants. Versus Sri Sheojee Singh, son of Rajendra Prasad Singh, Shivpuri, Tarang Press Road, Bank Colony, Patna ---- Assessee/Respondent. ----------- 19.5.2011 Heard Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad for the appellants. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), and is directed against the order dated 7.5.2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna, in ITA No.305/Pat/06 with respect to assessment year 2004-05, whereby the department’s appeal was dismissed. The effect of the impugned order is that the assessee will not be entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of income-tax in terms of Section 10(10C) of the Act, with respect to the proceeds of the Optional Early Retirement Scheme of the Reserve Bank of India. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. The issue arising in the present appeal was the subject matter of Appeal No. 53 of 2008 (Commissioner of Vinay/ Income Tax V. Koodathil Kallyatan Ambujakshan), before the Bombay High Court, which was decided against the Revenue, and in favour of the assessee. In other words, the Bombay High Court held that benefit of exemption in terms of Section 10(10C) of the Act shall be available to the assessee. Taking note of the judgment of the Bombay High Court, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (in short ‘CBDT’), issued order dated 9.5.2009, in due observance and implementation of the judgment of the Bombay High Court. The present appeal today comes up at the instance of the learned counsel for the appellants. He seeks permission to withdraw this appeal in view of the judgment of the Bombay High Court, read with the order dated 9.5.2009 of the CBDT. The appeal is permitted to be withdrawn. The assessee shall be entitled to refund of the taxes already realized on the proceeds of the aforesaid scheme, along with the statutory interest from the date of realisation of taxes till the date of the refund. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) ( S. P. Singh, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan