MAHEBOOB MALULSAHEB TAMBE,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

ITA 3312/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 September 2026AY 2020-202115 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by various assessees against orders passed by the CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22. The common issue was whether amounts received by employees of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019, constituted retrenchment compensation and were capital receipts eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessees had initially claimed exemption under Section 10(10C) or offered part of the income to tax. Some CIT(A) orders dismissed appeals due to delay or for entertaining new claims not made in the original return.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by the employees of BSNL under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019, were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and constituted capital receipts, exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the issue was squarely covered by its own previous decisions and those of other coordinate benches, particularly the case of Prathibha Jagdish Unawane Vs. ITO. The reasoning was that the substance of the transaction, rather than its form, indicated termination of employment with compensation, aligning with the intent of Section 10(10B). The Tribunal reversed the findings of the CIT(A) and allowed the grounds of appeal. Assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities were to grant any refund due after verification. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in CIT(A) orders on similar facts and emphasized the importance of consistency in judicial decisions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the amount received by employees of BSNL on account of retirement under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019, is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and a capital receipt, eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessees argued that the amounts received were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and capital receipts, thus eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). They relied on various decisions of the Tribunal and other benches, including the case of Prathibha Jagdish Unawane Vs. ITO, which held similar payments as exempt under Section 10(10B). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue supported the orders of the CIT(A), arguing that the sums received were not retrenchment compensation but amounts received under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, making Section 10(10C) applicable. The Revenue did not present any contrary decisions from higher authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(10B),Section 10(10C),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE ‘SMC’ BENCH, PUNE

BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No. Assessee Respondent A.Y. No. 1-2 No.3261/PUN/2026 Sunita Jaiprakash ITO, 2020-21 No.3262/PUN/2026 Gaidhani, Ward—2(1), 2021-22 C/o. Padvekar Law Nashik Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : ABBPG2003P 3-4 No.3263/PUN/2026 Ravindra Gopal ITO, 2020-21 No.3264/PUN/2026 Chandgadkar, Ward-1(1), 2021-22 C/o. Padvekar Law Kolhapur Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : AIBPC8697C 5-6 No.3284/PUN/2026 Liladhar Ulhas ITO, 2020-21 No.3285/PUN/2026 Chaudhari, Ward-1(4), 2021-22 C/o. Padvekar Law Jalgaon Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : AAJPC8330J 7-8 No.3286/PUN/2026 Laxmikant Dabral, ITO, 2020-21 No.3287/PUN/2026 C/o. Padvekar Law Ward-4, 2021-22 Chambers, 408, Panvel Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : ABWPD6369C 9-10 No.3308/PUN/2026 Gajiram Bhaguji ITO, 2020-21 No.3309/PUN/2026 Palde, Ward—2(1), 2021-22 C/o. CA Aanup Ashok Nashik Laddha,

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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)

All 1,303 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(10B) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →