Itta/174/2005 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Smt. G.v.s.satyavathi

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALEAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO I.T.T.A. Nos.113, 120, 148, 162, 165, 166, 167,170, 171, 172, 173 and 174 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Dilip B.Bhosale) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue submitsthat the questions of law formulated in all these appeals are common. The questions of law formulated in ITTA No.113 of 2005 read thus: “(A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee isentitled to the relief u/s.89 (1) of the Income Tax Act in respect ofthe compensation amount received on the eve of voluntaryretirement from service, over and above the ceiling limit of Rs.5 lakhs stipulated in Section 10 (10C) of the Income Tax Act, inspite of proviso thereto?” (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that reliefu/s.89 (1) of the Income Tax Act also is liable to be extended tocompensation received on the eve of voluntary retirement, in spiteof section 10 (10C) of the Income Tax Act framing a self-containedand integral sceheme to cover such receipts?” At the outset Mr.S.R.Ashok, learned counsel appearing for theappellant, invited our attention to the judgment of this Court dated24.10.2006 whereby this Court disposed of W.P.No.20173 of 2014 andconnected writ petitions and I.T.T.A.No.47 of 2003 and connectedappeals. He submits that both the questions raised in these appealswere addressed in the said judgment. In view thereof he furthersubmits that both the questions raised in these appeals may beanswered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessees. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-assesseesjoins him in making such prayer on the basis of the judgment of thisCourt dated 24.10.2006, disposing the batch of writ petitions andI.T.T.A.s. Hence, both the questions raised in these appeals areanswered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessees. The appeals are disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending in these appeals, if any, alsostand disposed of. __________________ Dilip B.Bhosale, J 2[nd] February, 2015.sur ________________________A.Ramalingeswara Rao, J