A V Wandhekar Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)

Court: Income Tax Tribunal, Pune
Head Notes:

Assessee retired after serving State Government partly and partly State PSU, the Gratuity and Leave Encashment exemption to be computed in two separate portion. One for Government Service and one for non-government Service. Retirement benefit accrued for a former period shall be exempt without limit and later period shall be exempt to the extent of maximum ceiling provided in the statute.
In case of wrongful claim in the ITR, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) or 270A be levied for bonafide cause.

Section(s): 271(1)(c) and 270A of the Income Tax Act
Counsel(s): Mr Ramnath Murkunde
Dowload Pdf File Click here to download the file in pdf format
Uploaded By Adv Milind Vernekar
Date of upload: March 13, 2024
9 comments on “A V Wandhekar Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
  1. Adv Raghuram Shastri says:

    I have read the order of this case. I find that facts of the case has been carefully analyzed. And retirement benefit relating to service period is bifurcated.
    I have searched for this type of order and facts but not find on google.
    This is very useful decision for typical facts.
    Great one your lordships.

  2. Adv Karthikswami (Bangalore) says:

    Isn’t its a strange judgment. yes it is and well supported by apex court ratio on interpretation.

    There seems no provision in the Act which lays down the process or procedure to determine character of government service.

    Whether nature of service at the time of joining or at the retirement is the determinant?

    Come may what, but this judgement seems more logical and thought provoking. . . and this will probable be confirmed in the higher higher courts.

  3. Anurag Pathare says:

    This order dealt with a very peculiar facts and circumstances. On the determination by the assessing officer the assessee must of paid the taxes on the disallowance of excess claim. Can the assessee seek rectification under section 154 of the Act within four years from the date of this order.

    And all said and done but the assessing officers do not follow the binding judicial precedents given by the jurisdictional tribunals.

  4. Kapil Shah says:

    Superb analysis and finding by the Hon’ble Tribunal.

    This will also be applied across India in all electricity State PSUs.

    Further applications to AIR India employee assessees to be checked.

  5. Jaimins Srigandhi says:

    The judgment of this Tribunal is though provoking and would help thousands of employee assessee across the country who retired or retiring from State Public Sector Companies who joined their service initially as the employee of State Electricity Board

    Highly appreciated.

  6. CA Neha Kale says:

    The counsel pleaded for assessee is wrongly mentioned in the above post. Please correct the name of the counsel.

  7. D Hemant says:

    At the outset, based on the above judgement, is there a definition of PSU? Next, if the holding of the Govt. is more than 50%, would it not be a Govt Company, hence the full allowance of exemption, in the absence of proper definition of PSU.

  8. Anurag Pathare says:

    Can anyone share the order of state government recognizing MSEB as government body?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *