Case LawHigh Court › In Chandra Ranganathan And Ors v. Commis...

In Chandra Ranganathan And Ors v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, [2010] 326 Itr 49

High Court 16 Sep 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · asghccis
Parties
In Chandra Ranganathan And Ors v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, [2010] 326 Itr 49
Date of order
16 Sep 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In In Chandra Ranganathan And Ors v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, [2010] 326 Itr 49, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.

Decision: The appeals are disposed of in view of the above.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

ITA 2/2010BEFOREHON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR MADAN B. LOKURHON’BLE MR JUSTICE U. B. SAHA The following two substantial questions of law were framed for consideration of this court on 16-6-2010 :- (1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified and correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption U/S 10(IOC) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the amount received as compensation on retirement under the Optional Early Retirement Scheme (OERS)of the Reserve Bank of India upto an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- even if the said scheme is not in conformity with the provisions of the said section vis-�-vis Rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ? (2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified and correct in law in holding that the sum received as compensation on termination/cessation of employment under the VRS scheme is a part of salary and thereby eligible for relief U/s 89 of the Act ? Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that in view of the Circular dated 9-5-09 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and which has been referred to in Chandra Ranganathan and Ors vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2010] 326 ITR 49(SC) both the issues are required to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We may note that the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, out of which these substantial questions of law had arisen, relied upon an earlier order passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench. It appears that the order passed by the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal was considered by the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Koodathil Kallyatan Ambujakshan [2009] 309 ITR 113 (Bom) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to this decision while deciding in favour of the assessee by relying upon the Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The appeals are disposed of in view of the above. The records be sent back to the Tribunal.
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