SATYAVENKATA SUBHRAMANYA SUDHAKAR PUPPALA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM
What were the facts?
The assessees claimed exemption for leave salary under Section 10(10AA)(i) of the Income Tax Act. This claim was made for the first time before the Tribunal, and the facts regarding the conditions for such exemption were not readily available.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessees are entitled to exemption for leave salary under Section 10(10AA)(i) and if a fresh claim can be considered at the Tribunal level.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापत्तनम पीठ, धिशाखापत्तनम INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA 255 & 256/VIZ/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 & A.Y.2021-22) VENKATA YAGNESWARASASTRY JAYANTHI INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, C/O KATRAPATI & AMP; ASSOCIATES, KOPPU GUARANA BUILDING, 1-1-298/2/B/3, SOWBHAGYA AVENUE SIDDARTHA NAGAR, APTS, 1ST FLOOR, ASHOK NAGAR, Vs. VIZIANAGARAM-535002, STREET NO.1, HYDERABAD-500020, TELANGANA ANDHRA PRADESH अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent
Permanent Account Number of Assessee: ACCPJ6113F
Ld. CIT APPEAL, ADDL-JCIT (A)-5, CHENNAI Appealed Against the order for the A.Y. 2020-21 vide DIN: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1085979842(1) dated 13-Feb-2026 for the Assessment Year 2020-21. Ld. CIT, Appeal, ADDL-JCIT (A)-5, CHENNAI vide Appealed Against the order for the A.Y. 2021-22 DIN: ITBA/APL/250/2025-26/1085980028(1) dated 13-Feb-2026 for the Assessment Year 2021-22
ITA 423 & 424/VIZ/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 & A.Y.2021-22) VASAMSETTY ANANTALAKSHMI BHARATHI INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 11-1-7, ISMAIL NAGAR,
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(10AA)(i)
- Attigade Krishnamurthy Shashikirana, Shimoga vs ITO Ward (3)(3)1 Bangalore, BangaloreITA 2409/BANG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Krishna Sastry Sreedhara, Shimoga vs ITO Ward 1 Tps Shimoga, ShimogaITA 2407/BANG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Cheluvaraju Puttappa, Mysuru, Karnataka vs ITO, Ward 1(1), Mysore, Mysuru, KarnatakaITA 2309/BANG/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Cheluvaraju Puttappa, Mysuru, Karnataka vs ITO, Ward 1(1), Mysore, Mysuru, KarnatakaITA 2308/BANG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Chamblon Reeta, Bangalore vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), Blr, BangaloreITA 1997/BANG/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Rajesh Kumar Shaw vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge And OrsCalcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreya Steel Corporation vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue, Bally And Salkia Charge And OrsCalcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreya Steel Corporation vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Revenue, Bally And Salkia Charge And OrsCalcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Samir Halder vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Shaw vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge And OrsCalcutta · 6 Oct 2026