SUDHIR SHARMA,KODERMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), DHANBAD, DHANBAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made in the Section 143(1) intimation was not permissible under the said section and was therefore bad in law. The assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 10(10AA) of the Act.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an employee of Bank of India, claimed exemption for leave encashment of Rs. 3.00 lacs. This claim was denied in an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the denial of leave encashment exemption in a Section 143(1) intimation was valid, and if the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 10(10AA).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
PER: BENCH
This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A), Kochi in Appeal No. NFAC/2019-20/10225007 dated 10/03/2025 for the A.Y. 2020-21. 2. Shri Sudhir Sharma, the assessee appeared in person and Shri Kailash V. Gautam, ld. Sr.DR is represented on behalf of the revenue.
At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the assessee that the assessee was an employee of the Bank of India. The assessee had received leave encashment and had claimed exemption to an extent of Rs. 3.00 lacs. It was the submission that an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), the said claim was denied. The assessee has placed before
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)
- Mohan Singh Rajawat, Jaipur vs ITO WD 7(1), JaipurITA 228/JPR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Abhay Hiralal Gandhi, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 1955/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Usmangani Ahemadbhai Manva, Modasa vs ITO, Ward-1, ModasaITA 2526/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Usmangani Ahemadbhai Manva, Modasa vs ITO, Ward-1, ModasaITA 2525/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rasiklal Arjanbhai Kobia, Upleta vs ITO WD 2(2)(3), RKT, RajkotITA 1119/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Heard1 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026