MULIMANI NAGARATHNA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(1), BLR, BANGALORE
What were the facts?
The appeals involved various assessees challenging orders from the NFAC, Delhi, primarily concerning the taxability of retrenchment compensation and leave encashment. Many appeals were dismissed by the NFAC on grounds of limitation or maintainability.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the NFAC's dismissal on technical grounds like limitation and maintainability was incorrect. It allowed the appeals, granting the assessees the benefit of exemption for retrenchment compensation under Section 10(10B) and full leave encashment under Section 10(10AA) of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the NFAC erred in dismissing appeals on grounds of limitation and maintainability, and whether assessees are entitled to exemptions for retrenchment compensation and leave encashment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 10(10B),Section 10(10AA),Section 154,Section 119(2)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH : BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER
Assessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year Jyothi Selvaraju, C-1005, Cassia, Brigade Millenium, The Income Tax ITA No. Puttenahalli Main Road, Officer, 2020-21 1742/Bang/2026 J P Nagar, Ward – 2(1), S.O. Bangalore South, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 078. PAN: AHEPS3387F Jaiprakash, No. 22, ARIVU, Pragathi Layout, The Income Tax ITA No. 14th Cross, Officer, 2020-21 1743/Bang/2026 Hebbal Kempapura S.O., Ward – 2(1)(1), Bangalore North, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 024. PAN: AEJPJ0160M Shrinivas Govind Raikar, No. 452, 2nd Floor, 2nd Cross, The Income Tax Kadambi School Road, ITA No. Officer, Bangalore North, 2021-22 1745/Bang/2026 Ward – 3(3)(1), Basaveshwaranagar S.O., Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 079. PAN: AAQPR7686F
Vedavathi Kakkebettu, D.No. 5-31-2, Sri Ganesh The Income Tax 2020-21 ITA Nos. 1757 & Kripa, Tenkila, Kasaba, Officer, & 1778/Bang/2026 Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, Ward – 1, 2021-22 Puttur – 574 201. Puttur. PAN: AKKPK5167A
Mulimani Nagarathna, 1518/4, B Block, 9th Main, The Income Tax ITA No. 23rd Cross, Officer, 2020-21
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 10(10B)
- Kishorchandra Girdharlal Joshi, Amreli vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(4), AmreliITA 613/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Shantilal Maganbhai Kalani, Amreli vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(4), AmreliITA 559/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Shantilal Maganbhai Kalani, Amreli vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(4), AmreliITA 558/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Lakhman Shir, Jamnagar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), JamnagarITA 498/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Lakhman Shir, Jamnagar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), JamnagarITA 497/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ram Dutt vs. The Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST CommissionerateUttarakhand · 9 Oct 2026
- M/S Prasanna Kumar Parija vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 9 Oct 2026
- Bibhasa Jena vs. The Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar CommissionerateOrissa · 9 Oct 2026
- M/S Otd Logistics Express Private Limited vs. The Commissioner CGST Cx And CustomsOrissa · 9 Oct 2026
- Sangram Mallik vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And CustomsOrissa · 9 Oct 2026