Dismissed

rbi oers optees association v. central board of directt taxes and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Jun 2006WP/357/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the unregistered RBI OERS Optees Association challenging the denial of tax exemption under section 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act. The Court held it was not fit to entertain the petition due to the availability of appeal and the lack of legal personality of the petitioner association.

What the court decided

AI extract

rbi oers optees association Vs central board of directt taxes and… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION.

¶3

WRIT PETITION 357 OF 2006 .

¶4

... Petitioner.

¶5

RBI ‘OERS’ Optees Assn. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Central Board of Direct Taxes & ors. ... Respondents.

¶6

Mr.V.H.Patil with Asifa Khan for the petitioner. Mr. Kunal Damle i/b Udwadia & Udeshi for respondent No.4.

¶7

CORAM : V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATED : 6.6.2006.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused petition.

¶10

This petition is at the instance of an unregistered association, formed by the employees of the Reserve Bank of India, who have opted to retire under the "Optional Early Retirement Scheme" ( OERS) framed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

¶11

The petitioner-Association has challenged the letter dated 20.10.2005 issued by the 1st respondent holding that the exemption under sec. 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not allowable with respect to ex-gratia payment made to the employees of R.B.I. who have opted to retire under the "Optional Early Retirement Scheme", since scheme

¶12

did not conform to the provisions of Rule 2 BA of

¶13

the Income Tax Rules.

¶14

The petitioner- Association is also seeking

¶15

directions	against	the Income	Tax	Department	not	to
initiate	action against	the emplo	yees	in view	of	the
alleged	exemption	under section	10	(10C) of	the	Act
available	to the	members of	the	Associatio	n	with
further	direction	not to	pass	any	rectif	ication
order	under section	154 of the	Act	and to	recall	the

¶16

order, if passed with consequential orders to refund

¶17

the amount of tax paid or recovered.

¶18

5.		Ha	ving h	eard Mr.	Patil, he	does not dispute
that	in		all	individu	al ca	ses, the	assessees	have
filed	appeal	a	gainst	th	e o	rders passed	under	section
154	of	the	Act	and	such	appeals are	pending.	In
this	view		of	the		matter,	considering	the
availability		of	the		adequate	and	effective	alternate
remedy	of	app	eal,	this	is	not a	fit c	ase to
entertain		this	p	etition	at	this	stag.	Even
otherwise,		an		un-i	ncorpora	ted association	are	not
legal	per	sons	and	as	such	this writ	petition	is not

¶19

maintainable at the instance of the

¶20

petitioner-Association. ( see AIR 1990 Cal.176).

¶21

In the above view of the matter, this

¶22

¶23

petition stands dismissed in limine. Needless mention that all contentions raised by

¶24

the

¶25

petitioner-association are kept open. No order as to costs.

¶26

(V.C.DAGA,J.)

¶27

(J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)

rbi oers optees association v. central board of directt taxes and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

rbi oers optees association v. central board of directt taxes and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Jeena and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax CIRCLE2(2), Mumbai

All India Photographic Dealer Assn. Vs O.P.Ganothra

Coral Cosmetics Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.

Madhusudan C. Parikh Vs Commissioner of Income Tax City-Xvi

M/S. Parakh Loniwala and Sons Vs Commissioner of Income Tax City-Xxii

Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai v Vs M/S. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.