Case LawHigh Court › Itta/11/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income T...

Itta/11/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M. Venugopalam

High Court 08 Jul 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/11/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M. Venugopalam
Date of order
08 Jul 2015
Assessment year(s)
2001-02
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itta/11/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M. Venugopalam, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holdingthat relief u/s.

Decision: The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAHAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAMI.T.T.A. No. 11 of 2006 ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram, J) This appeal at the instance of Revenue, arises from theorder of the Tribunal dated 05.07.2005 in ITANo.64/Vizag/2005 for the assessment year 2001-02, raisingthe following substantial questions of law: “(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding thatthe assessee is entitled to the relief u/s.89(1) of theIncome Tax Act in respect of the compensation amountreceived on the eve of the voluntary retirement fromservice, over and above the ceiling limit of Rs.5 lakhsstipulated in Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act,inspite of proviso thereto? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holdingthat relief u/s. 89(1) of the Income Tax Act also is liable tobe extended to compensation received on the eve ofvoluntary retirement, inspite of section 10(10C) of theIncome Tax Act framing a self-contained and integralscheme to cover such receipts?” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is fairlyconceded by the learned Standing Counsel for theDepartment that the issue raised in the present case issquarely covered by the Common Judgment of this Court inW.P No.20173 of 2004 and batch and I.T.T.A No.15 of 2005and batch, against the Revenue. 3. In that view of the matter, the questions of law raised are also in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 4. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shallstand closed. ____________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J 08[th] July, 2015ksm ____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM ksm I.T.T.A No. 11 of 2006 08[th] July, 2015
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