Case LawHigh Court › Ita/924/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Inco...

Ita/924/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. K.balakrishnan

High Court 07 Sep 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/924/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. K.balakrishnan
Date of order
07 Sep 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Ita/924/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. K.balakrishnan, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 ITA.No. 924 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.425/COCH/2007 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT: ------------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- K.BALAKRISHNAN, `SHANTHIKRISHNA', XI/1381, AMBALAPADY, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM-679 328. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH ITA NO.944/2009 & CONN. CASES ON 07/09/2009, THE COURT ON 07/09/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ....................................................................I.T. Appeal Nos.924,944,977,984,1044,1089,1093,1157,1159 & 1498 of 2009 ....................................................................Dated this the 7th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Connected Income Tax Appeals are filed by the Revenue againstorders of the Tribunal holding that respondents-assessees who areretired Reserve Bank employees, got release from service underVoluntary Retirement Scheme, are entitled to exemption upto Rs.5lakhs covered by Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act. StandingCounsel submitted that the respondents are not entitled to the benefitbecause the terms of payment under the scheme are not consistent withRules framed under Rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules. However, ongoing through Tribunal's orders we find that the Tribunal hasconsidered the terms of VRS and found that the terms substantiallycomply with the requirement of the Rules. We are of the view that thefindings of the Tribunal are on facts in as much as the Tribunal foundthat the terms of retirement satisfied the condition of the Rules. We, therefore, do not find any substantial question of law arising from theorder of the Tribunal and dismiss all the appeals. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge pms V.K.MOHANANJudge
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