XI-HC—78 mm Hi zoo mm (Wu) mmm WW§WW %aaimm HIGH COURT OF CHHARTTISGARH AT B LASPUR Com:- m ‘ Hon’bl‘ Shri Dhirendra Mishra &‘ Hon’b! Shri-R.N.‘Chandrakar,JJ Tax Cs se No.1 612007 ‘ Assistant Commissioner ofv lnccme Tax, Circle, Korba g $hri J.L. Dewangan L.!,G. 74 Shivaj'inagar, Korba Snccme Tax agneal under Section ESQ-A af the income Tax ¥ £ Apnellant x erSuS Respondent £:‘C:’:§5l {M I09I2OD9 iShri SR. Rao. ceuns‘al for the appeuant. $ince the substantiaE questions of Saw involved in both the cases are common, i’ne sane are taken up for hearing together i i i ’ Annel‘ant income Tax Officer, Korba ‘nersus Resoondent Shvi Ramesh Niiamwar, Balco Nagar, Korba Tax Ca se No.18l2007 x XI-Hc—78 ¢$ Wm E200 mm (W3) WWW WW&‘WW ,5... ‘%aif?ma¥r%zt and are being disposed 9f question of law as proposed ‘A. “Whether on circumstances iustifTed in law the claim of the 10 (10 Ci of the extent of R B. I ‘Whether on circumstances justitied in amendment, Assessment Y (2) Learned counsel for substantial questions of decided by this Court vide Case No.15/2007 in incol‘ge wherein it has been held th ' “On the basis of afo salary or benefit in li opting for voluntary under $ection' 15 ( though not paid. } exempted from bein by a common order‘ The substantial by the appellant are as under:- the facts and in the of ihe case. the ITAT was in directinu the A.O. to allow assessee for exemgtion u/s he lnCome Tax Act, 1961 to s.5.00,000/—?" the facts and in the of the case. the ITAT was applying the prospective retrospectively for the ear 2003-04?" the appellant fairly submits that the law have already been authoritatively order dated 16062009 passed in Tax tax Officer Korba vs. Dhan Sai - esaid discussions. we hold that salary payable to an employee etirement is chargeable to tax } as soon as'it became due. The amount so received is- charged to tax to' thetextent of XI’HC——78 mm m zoo W mm (m mwm ' ,3~ WWW Wm 3vaifaqm Rs.5;O0,000I- by the rsason of Section 1O (10C) of the Act Even if the payment is stretched over a same wouid not become periad of years, th ehameable ta tax in any subsequent assessment year." (3) Learned counse! for t e appellant fairiy submits that these two cases are squarety cover d by the abcve cited judgments (4‘1 in that view of the mett r: foHowing the principies of law taid dawn in the above judgmen both the appeats Le. 16/2007 and 18/2007 are dismissed havin_ n0 substance. Sd/- Sd/- Dhirendra Mishrax R.N. Charakar Judge Judge nd