Of Income Tax Under Section 10(26) Of The Act.section 10(26) Of The Act Excludes Income From Any Source In The Specified Area To Member Of A Scheduled Tribe Def v. Union Of India And Others, (2010) 2 Glr 367.Learned Counsel For The Revenue Does Not Dispute That The Full Bench View Supports The Claim Of The Petitioner. His
High Court
23 Jul 2013 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · asghccis
Parties
Of Income Tax Under Section 10(26) Of The Act.section 10(26) Of The Act Excludes Income From Any Source In The Specified Area To Member Of A Scheduled Tribe Def v. Union Of India And Others, (2010) 2 Glr 367.Learned Counsel For The Revenue Does Not Dispute That The Full Bench View Supports The Claim Of The Petitioner. His
Date of order
23 Jul 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Of Income Tax Under Section 10(26) Of The Act.section 10(26) Of The Act Excludes Income From Any Source In The Specified Area To Member Of A Scheduled Tribe Def v. Union Of India And Others, (2010) 2 Glr 367.Learned Counsel For The Revenue Does Not Dispute That The Full Bench View Supports The Claim Of The Petitioner. His, the High Court (2013) decided the matter under Section 10, Section 197 of the Income-tax Act.
Decision: The petition is disposed of.
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
WP(C) 1350/2013B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.GOEL,THE CHIEF JUSTICETHE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. GOSWAMI
(A.K.Goel, CJ)
Challenge in this petition is to the letter dated 15.11.2012 issued by the JointCommissioner of Income Tax (TDS), respondent No.5, under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled to exemption
of income tax under Section 10(26) of the Act.Section 10(26) of the Act excludes income from any source in the specified area to member of a scheduled tribe defined under Article 366(25), residing in specified area from ’total income’ under the Act.
According to the petitioner, he was posted in the State of Arunachal Pradesh andwas living there for his work, though originally he was resident of the State of Assam and not of the specified area. It is submitted that requirement of �residing in any area specified � is fulfilled even when a person is residing for the purpose of his job and the said expression could not be given a narrow and restricted meaning. Reliance has been placed on Full Bench judgment of this Court in Pradip Kr. Taye and others vs. Union of India and others, (2010) 2 GLR 367.Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute that the Full Bench view supports the claim of the petitioner. His only contention is that the said view is erroneous.
On due consideration, we are of the view that this petition must succeed. The Full Bench judgment clearly supports the case of the petitioner and has to be followed in absence of any contrary view of a larger Bench or of a higher Court. Accordingly, we allow this petition and quash the impugned letter with a direction that a fresh order be passed in accordance with law. If any deduction has been made from the salary of the petitioner, the petitioner will be at liberty to seek refund in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of.
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.
EaseValue