<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2005 (10) TMI 46 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9504</link>
    <description>Section 10(10)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was examined for alleged discrimination under Article 14 because it limits gratuity exemption to 15 days&#039; wages for each completed year of service. The text notes that the exemption applies uniformly to gratuity under schemes outside section 10(10)(i) and section 10(10)(ii), and that the statutory gratuity rate under the Payment of Gratuity Act is itself based on 15 days&#039; wages per completed year. As the record did not show that the affected employees were similarly situated to those under the other gratuity provisions, the provision was not shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48526" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 46 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9504</link>
      <description>Section 10(10)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was examined for alleged discrimination under Article 14 because it limits gratuity exemption to 15 days&#039; wages for each completed year of service. The text notes that the exemption applies uniformly to gratuity under schemes outside section 10(10)(i) and section 10(10)(ii), and that the statutory gratuity rate under the Payment of Gratuity Act is itself based on 15 days&#039; wages per completed year. As the record did not show that the affected employees were similarly situated to those under the other gratuity provisions, the provision was not shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9504</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>