TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1622
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....:- "That the CIT(A) has wrongly allowed exemption u/s 10(10B) on account of compensation under scheme approved by Central Government amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- in place of Rs. 30,17,000/". 3. The brief facts of the case that the Assessee was an employee of the Department of Telecommunication Services and Department of Telecom Operations (DOT). The department had been transformed in BSNL w.e.f. 01/10/2000. The assessee had opted BSNL Retirement Scheme 2019 (Voluntary Retirement Scheme) and he received total emoluments of Rs. 30,17,000/-. The Assessee had claimed exemption of Rs.30,17,000/- u/s 10(10B) of the Act in its ITR. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 25,17,000/- out of total emoluments of Rs. 30,17,000/- and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yees. The Ld. counsel in this respect has referred to the revival scheme of the Department of Telecommunications dated 29.12.2019, whereby, the purposes of the scheme was revival of BSNL and MTNL by way of reducing employees cost. Inter-alia, The compensation/exgratia on VRS was to be paid in two installments of 50% each during the financial years 1920-21 and 2020-21. 5. In this case, the Assessee received first installment of compensation/exgratia on VRS during the financial year 2019-20 upon which the claim exemption u/s 10(10B) of the Act to the Assessee has been allowed by the Ld. CIT(A)in the appellate order in relation to the assessment year 2020-21. The relevant part of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under :- "T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No.1 stands Allowed." 7. Copy of ITAT order has been submitted, this decision dated 20.09.2023 Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench was perused wherein several appeals of employees of HTML TD were taken up. The Hon'ble ITAT opined in Para 48 that the matter had been examined by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and thereafter has attained finality in view of dismissal of the SLP y Hon'ble Supreme Court and also added that "such matters need not be litigated any further" 8. Respectfully following the decision of the Jurisdictional Hon'ble ITAT, the A.O is directed to allow compensation received by the appellant at the time of VRS as exempt income u/s 10(10B) of the Act. Accordingly, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t terms, it may not be said that the amount received by the assessee was on account of commutation of pension, however, the fact on the file is that the aforesaid amount was given by the new employer who has taken over the company from the earlier employer and he had terminated the services of the employees on account of job retrenchment. The amount was paid as a Compensation for retrenchment of services taking into consideration the length of service, basic salary, the age and other factors. In our view, the said amount is a compensation paid by the employer while terminating the services of the employee on account of 1oss of job and further subsistence, thus, the said a mount was just a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee. In fac....