Not quite - you cannot move the income, but s.89 refunds the extra tax the bunching caused. Rule 21A(2) compares the tax the arrears attract in the year of receipt (tax on total income, less tax on total income without the arrears) with the tax the same money would have attracted had it been taxed year by year in the years it relates to, and the excess is the relief. The relief floors at nil, so if the earlier years' recomputation is the larger figure you get nothing. It is not automatic: s.89 grants relief only "on an application made to him in this behalf", so the claim has to be made, not assumed.
Section 89 exists because tax is charged on what you receive in a year, and a year in which three years' salary lands is taxed as though you had earned all of it in that year. The section reverses the slab effect, and only the slab effect. Its operative words are these: where an assessee "is in receipt of a sum in the nature of salary, being paid in arrears or in advance or is in receipt, in any one financial year, of salary for more than twelve months or a payment which under the provisions of clause (3) of section 17 is a profit in lieu of salary, or is in receipt of a sum in the nature of family pension as defined in the Explanation to clause (iia) of section 57, being paid in arrears, due to which his total income is assessed at a rate higher than that at which it would otherwise have been assessed, the Assessing Officer shall, on an application made to him in this behalf, grant such relief as may be prescribed". Four receipts, one condition, one machinery.
The condition does the work. Relief is available only where the total income "is assessed at a rate higher than that at which it would otherwise have been assessed" because of the receipt. If the arrears do not push you across a slab - if you were already at the top rate, or if both years fall in the same slab - there is a claim to make but the arithmetic will come out at nil. The four receipts are arrears or advance salary; salary for more than twelve months in one financial year; a payment which is a profit in lieu of salary under s.17(3); and family pension paid in arrears, family pension being defined for this purpose in the Explanation to s.57(iia). Nothing else qualifies.
The machinery has two parts a reader should keep separate. First, the section grants no relief of its own motion: the Assessing Officer grants it "on an application made to him in this behalf". Second, the section contains no arithmetic at all - it grants "such relief as may be prescribed", and the whole of the computation therefore sits in Rule 21A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. If you want to know what the relief is worth, the section will not tell you; the Rule will.
There is one bar, in the proviso to s.89: "no such relief shall be granted in respect of any amount received or receivable by an assessee on his voluntary retirement or termination of his service, in accordance with any scheme or schemes of voluntary retirement or in the case of a public sector company referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (10-C) of section 10, a scheme of voluntary separation, if an exemption in respect of any amount received or receivable on such voluntary retirement or termination of his service or voluntary separation has been claimed by the assessee under clause (10-C) of section 10 in respect of such, or any other, assessment year". Read the last words. The bar is not confined to the year of the receipt: claiming the s.10(10C) exemption in any assessment year shuts s.89 out for that money. It is one or the other, and the choice is made once.
Rule 21A(1) splits the field into five limbs and sends each to its own sub-rule: arrears or advance salary, and family pension in arrears, go to sub-rule (2); gratuity for past service of "not less than five years" goes to sub-rule (3); compensation from an employer or former employer at or in connection with termination goes to sub-rule (4); commutation of pension goes to sub-rule (5); and anything else falls into sub-rule (6). The limbs use different arithmetic, and using one limb's method on another limb's receipt is the commonest error in this area.
The arrears arithmetic - sub-rule (2), the one behind almost every real claim - runs like this. Call the year of receipt the relevant previous year, the arrears the additional salary, the total income of the year of receipt TI, and the arrears A. Clause (b) fixes what the arrears cost you this year: tax is computed on TI reduced by A, and "the amount by which the tax so calculated falls short of the tax on the total income before such reduction" is the tax on the additional salary. That is Tax(TI) minus Tax(TI - A) - a marginal figure, computed at the rates in force for the year of receipt. Clause (c) fixes what the same money would have cost in the year it belonged to, where it belongs to one year only: tax on that year's total income increased by A, less the tax actually payable on that year's total income, at that year's own rates. Clause (d) does the same where the arrears straddle several years, and it does so in a fixed order - first "the previous years to which the additional salary or additional family pension relates and the amount relating to each such previous year shall first be ascertained", then each of those years is recomputed with its own slice added, and the aggregate increase across those years is the aggregate tax on the arrears. Clause (a) then does the subtraction: the tax payable for the year of receipt "shall be reduced by the amount, if any, by which the tax on the additional salary or additional family pension, calculated in the manner specified in clause (b), exceeds the tax or the aggregate tax on the additional salary or additional family pension, calculated in the manner specified in clause (c) or clause (d)".
So, as a formula: relief = [Tax(TI) - Tax(TI - A)] - sum over the earlier years y of [Tax(TI_y + A_y) - Tax(TI_y)], and the words "the amount, if any, by which ... exceeds" mean the relief floors at nil. If rates have fallen, or if the earlier years were themselves high-income years, the second bracket can be the larger one; the result is then no relief, not a negative adjustment and not a carry-forward. Two practical consequences follow. The year-wise split of the arrears is not optional colour - clause (d)(i) makes ascertaining it the first step, so the employer's break-up letter is the primary document of the claim. And each earlier year is recomputed on its own assessed total income at its own rates; this page does not carry those rates, which are set by the Finance Act for each year.
The other limbs work on an average-rate basis, not a marginal one, and they spread notionally rather than actually. For gratuity, sub-rule (3)(a) reduces the year's tax by the excess of tax on the gratuity "included in the total income of the relevant previous year, calculated at the average rate of tax applicable to such total income" over tax on the same gratuity at a rate worked out from the preceding years. Where past service is not less than five years but less than fifteen, that rate is built by adding "one-half of the amount of the gratuity" to each of the two immediately preceding years and averaging the two average rates; where past service is not less than fifteen years, it is "one-third of the amount of the gratuity" added to each of the three preceding years, averaged over three. Compensation on termination (sub-rule (4)) and commutation of pension (sub-rule (5)) both use the three-preceding-years, one-third method. Note the two service conditions on the compensation limb in Rule 21A(1)(c): continuous service of "not less than three years" and an unexpired portion of the term of employment also not less than three years - both must hold. Note too that every one of these limbs works on the amount "included in the total income", that is, on the taxable balance after any exemption, not on the gross cheque.
Sub-rule (6) is the residual limb and it is not a formula: where the payment is none of the listed kinds, "the Board may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, allow such relief as it deems fit". That is the Board, not the Assessing Officer, and it is discretionary. A claim that has to go through sub-rule (6) is a representation to the CBDT, not a computation in a return.
The filing sequence. Identify which limb of Rule 21A(1) the receipt falls in; get the year-wise break-up if it is an arrears case; compute the relief under the sub-rule that limb points to; and make the application that s.89 requires, because the words "on an application made to him in this behalf" mean relief is claimed, not conferred. The form comes from a different rule. Rule 21AA, headed "Furnishing of particulars for claiming relief under section 89(1)", is one sentence: "Where the assessee, being a Government servant or an employee in a company, co-operative society, local authority, university, institution, association or body, is entitled to relief under sub-section (1) of section 89, he may furnish to the person responsible for making the payment referred to in sub-section (1) of section 192, the particulars specified in Form No. 10E".
Read closely what that sentence does and does not do. It applies to a defined class - "a Government servant or an employee in a company, co-operative society, local authority, university, institution, association or body" - and to one who "is entitled to relief under sub-section (1) of section 89", so the rule assumes the entitlement rather than creating it. The particulars go to "the person responsible for making the payment referred to in sub-section (1) of section 192" - that is, to the employer who deducts tax from the salary, not to the Assessing Officer and not, on these words, to the department at all. What is furnished is "the particulars specified in Form No. 10E". And the verb is "may furnish", not shall. So the sequence the rules themselves support is this: work out the relief under the limb of Rule 21A that applies; furnish the Form 10E particulars to the employer under Rule 21AA, which is what lets the relief be taken into account when tax is deducted on the salary rather than left to be recovered later; and make the s.89 application for the relief itself. Two things the rule as printed does not do: it fixes no due date, and it prescribes no order relative to the return. It also states no consequence of not furnishing - it does not say the relief is lost, reduced or deferred. The near-universal practice is to file Form 10E on the e-filing portal before the return that claims the relief, and a reader should do that; but Rule 21AA is not the provision that requires it, and this page does not carry whatever does. Check the portal's own requirement before relying on the order.
One drafting curiosity worth knowing before you cite anything. Rule 21A(1) speaks of "the relief to be granted under sub-section (1) of section 89", but s.89 as substituted by Act 20 of 2002 with effect from 1 April 1996 is printed as a single undivided section with a proviso - there is no sub-section (1) in the text reproduced at the source. The reference is a survival from the older s.89(1)/(2) and nothing turns on it, but a reader who goes looking for s.89(1) will not find it.
The Income-tax Act 2025. The department's 1961-to-2025 concordance maps s.89 to s.157 (Relief when salary, etc., is paid in arrears or in advance), and the source page for s.157 carries Indian Kanoon's own note "Similar to Section 89 from The Income Tax Act, 1961". Here the 2025 text is available, so the comparison can be made rather than assumed, and the answer is that the substance is carried over and the packaging is rebuilt. s.157(1) puts the rate condition at the front - "Where the total income of an assessee is assessed at a rate higher than the rate at which it would otherwise have been assessed" - and then lists the four receipts as lettered clauses instead of running them into one sentence. Clause (a) is "a sum in the nature of arrear or advance salary"; clause (b) is "salary for more than twelve months in any one tax year"; clause (c) is a payment in the nature of "profits in lieu of salary" under s.18(1); clause (d) is arrears of "family pension" as defined in s.93(1)(d). The machinery is the same in kind: the Assessing Officer "shall on an application made to him by the assessee in this behalf, grant such relief, as may be prescribed" - still an application, still nothing prescribed in the section itself.
What actually changed in the words. "Financial year" becomes "tax year". The cross-references move: profit in lieu of salary from s.17(3) to s.18(1), and the family pension definition from the Explanation to s.57(iia) to s.93(1)(d). The 1961 phrase "a payment which under the provisions of clause (3) of section 17 is a profit in lieu of salary" - a deeming, in the singular - becomes "a payment in the nature of 'profits in lieu of salary' under section 18(1)"; whether "in the nature of" reads any wider than "which ... is" is not something either text settles. s.157(1) adds "by the assessee" to the application, which the 1961 words left to inference. And the VRS bar is rewritten hardest of all: the 1961 proviso describes the receipt at length (voluntary retirement, termination under a scheme, voluntary separation in a s.10(10C)(i) public sector company) and then bars relief where the s.10(10C) exemption has been claimed, whereas s.157(2) says only that "No relief shall be granted on any income on which deduction has been claimed by the assessee in section 19(1)(Table: Sl. No. 12)" for any amount mentioned therein, for such or any other tax year (the spacing in the printed text is irregular and is normalised in this quotation). Two things follow: the bar is now defined entirely by what has been claimed at one entry of the s.19(1) table rather than by describing the retirement scheme, and it has moved from an exemption cross-reference to a deduction cross-reference. The text of s.19 of the 2025 Act was not before me, so what stands at Sl. No. 12 of that table is not verified on this page. The carry-over words survive: claiming it in "any other" year still bars the relief.
Two cautions on the 2025 side. A concordance mapping is an administrative aid to reading, not a holding that the old position continues unchanged - it tells you which section replaced which, and nothing about whether a decision on s.89 governs s.157. And s.157, like s.89, grants only "such relief, as may be prescribed". The relief under the 2025 Act is therefore whatever the rules made under it prescribe, and no rule under the 2025 Act was before me. Everything above about the arithmetic - the marginal method for arrears, the average-rate method for gratuity, the one-half and one-third spreads - is Rule 21A under the 1961 Act. Do not carry it across to s.157 without reading the rule that answers to it.
This is the provision behind every "I got arrears and my tax jumped" question, and the relief is usually real money - a pay revision paid three years late can move a whole year's income across a slab that it never occupied in any of the years it belonged to. What changes a practitioner's conduct is that s.89 does none of the work itself: it grants relief "as may be prescribed", so the computation is Rule 21A's and nothing else, and the Rule sends arrears, gratuity, termination compensation and commuted pension down four different roads with different arithmetic. It also matters that the relief is granted on an application - a claim slipped into the return without the application the section requires is the standard reason these claims are disallowed at processing. And the proviso is a trap that reaches backwards: if the s.10(10C) exemption was claimed on a VRS receipt in any assessment year, s.89 is closed on that money for good.
My employer gave me a lump sum on top of my normal dues when I resigned, described in the letter as a one-off ex gratia. The officer says it is profits in lieu of salary. Is it?
I took VRS from a bank and claimed the Rs 5 lakh exemption under section 10(10C). Can I also claim spread-over relief under section 89(1) on the balance?
My employer's early retirement scheme does not spell out every condition in Rule 2BA. Does that destroy the s.10(10C) exemption?
I took voluntary retirement. Can I claim both the s.10(10C) exemption and s.89 relief on the balance?
A company withdrew my job offer before I joined and paid me compensation. Is that taxable as salary?
I received a settlement from a foreign state employer for a job I applied for but was never given. The officer says s.17(3)(iii) taxes anything received before joining employment. Does it reach me?
My VRS does not satisfy Rule 2BA. The Commissioner says that kills my s.35DDA deduction as employer. Does it?
My clients settled a wage dispute and took VRS and compensation for loss of future salary in two instalments. The company deducted TDS on the whole amount without giving s.89 relief. Can we make the employer refund it?
Every page in this library links to what it was written from, so you can check it rather than take our word for it.
