<?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>2006 (3) TMI 101 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9895</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the voluntary retirement scheme complied with Rule 2BA guidelines and the amount received did not exceed prescribed limits. The court clarified that either of the specified limits in Rule 2BA(vi) could be considered for exemption under section 10(10C), rejecting the Tribunal&#039;s interpretation that only the lower limit applied. The court held that the Tribunal&#039;s interpretation was incorrect as it added words not present in the rule, emphasizing that the correct interpretation allows for either specified limit. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant with no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48917" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 101 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9895</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the voluntary retirement scheme complied with Rule 2BA guidelines and the amount received did not exceed prescribed limits. The court clarified that either of the specified limits in Rule 2BA(vi) could be considered for exemption under section 10(10C), rejecting the Tribunal&#039;s interpretation that only the lower limit applied. The court held that the Tribunal&#039;s interpretation was incorrect as it added words not present in the rule, emphasizing that the correct interpretation allows for either specified limit. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant with no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9895</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>