KOLASANI VEERAIAH CHOWDARY,GUNTUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The appeals were filed by various assessees against separate orders of the Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22. The assessees are individuals, and the revenue is represented by the Income Tax Officer. The appeals challenge the orders passed by the appellate authorities. The procedural history indicates that the appeals were heard and concluded on various dates in October 2026, with the pronouncement of the order on October 29, 2026. The core of the dispute, as revealed in the decision, pertains to claims for exemption, particularly regarding leave salary.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal should consider an additional ground raised by the assessee relating to the claim of exemption under Section 10(10AA)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for leave salary, which was not made in the original return due to a bonafide mistake? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the claim for leave salary exemption was not made in the return due to a bonafide mistake and relied on the ITAT's decision in 'Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO' (ITA Nos. 255 & 256/VIZ/2026 dated 21.08.2026), which set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for consideration, referencing the Kerala High Court's decision in 'Sanchar Nigam Pensioners Welfare Association v. Union of India'. Revenue's contention: The Learned Departmental Representative (DR) supported the decisions of the lower authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE
Heard together (23 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश / ORDER
PER BENCH: The above appeals are directed against separate orders of the Learned Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which are tabulated hereinbelow. order against which assessee is in appeal before Sl.No. ITA No. & A.Y the Tribunal 1. ITA 897/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A)-1, NOIDA vide DIN: (AY: 2020-21) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1089707006(1) dated 15-Jun-2026. 2. ITA 898/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A)-1, NOIDA vide DIN: (AY: 2021-22) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1089707196(1) dated 15-Jun-2026. 3. ITA 899/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A)-2, GURUGRAM vide DIN: (AY: 2020-21) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1091491539(1) dated 27-Jul-2026. 4. ITA 900/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A)-2, GURUGRAM vide DIN: (AY: 2021-22) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1091491677(1) dated 27-Jul-2026. 5. ITA 901/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A)-2, CHENNAI vide DIN: (AY: 2020-21) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1091170052(1) dated 16-Jul-2026. 6. ITA 902/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A)-2, CHENNAI vide DIN: (AY: 2021-22) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1091183267 dated 17- Jul-2026. 7. ITA 903/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A), INDORE vide DIN: (AY: 2020-21) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1091539520(1) dated 28-Jul-2026. 8. ITA 904/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A), INDORE vide DIN: (AY: 2021-22) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1091540639(1) dated 28-Jul-2026. 9. ITA 905/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A), MADURAI vide DIN: (AY: 2020-21) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1089842919(1) dated 18-Jun-2026. 10. ITA 906/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A), MADURAI vide DIN: (AY: 2021-22) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1089843727(1) dated 18-Jun-2026. 11. ITA 907/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A)-2, NAGPUR vide DIN: (AY: 2020-21) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1090568267(1) dated 29-Jun-2026.
order against which assessee is in appeal before Sl.No. ITA No. & A.Y the Tribunal 12. ITA 908/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A)-2, NAGPUR vide DIN: (AY: 2021-22) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1090569811(1) dated 29-Jun-2026. 13. ITA 909/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A), INDORE vide DIN: (AY: 2021-22) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1091473808(1) dated 27-Jul-2026. 14. ITA 910/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A)-2, NOIDA vide DIN: (AY: 2021-22) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1090265527(1) dated 22-Jun-2026. 15. ITA 918/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A)-2, CHENNAI vide DIN: (AY: 2021-2022) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1091989089(1) dated 10-Aug-2026. 16. ITA 915/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL JCIT (A)-6, Chennai vide DIN: (AY: 2020-21) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1090598099(1) dated 29-Jun-2026. 17. ITA 916/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDLJCIT (A)-6 CHENNAI vide DIN: (AY: 2021-22) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1090598399(1) dated 29-Jun-2026. 18. ITA 919/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A)-1, NAGPUR vide DIN: (AY: 2020-21) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1092099420(1) dated 12-Aug-2026. 19. ITA 920/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A)-1, NAGPUR vide DIN: (AY: 2021-22) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1092100222(1) dated 12-Aug-2026. 20. ITA 921/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A)-1, GURUGRAM vide DIN: (AY: 2020-21) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1089573215(1) dated 10-Jun-2026. 21. ITA 922/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A)-1, GURUGRAM vide DIN: (AY: 2021-22) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1089573377(1) dated 10-Jun-2026.
ITA 923/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A)-4, DELHI vide DIN: (AY: 2021-22) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1089616599(1) dated 11-Jun-2026.
ITA 924/VIZ/2026 Ld. ADDL-JCIT(A)-1, JAIPUR vide DIN: (AY: 2021-22) ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1089562447(1) dated 10-Jun-2026.
The batch of appeals being ITA No. 897/VIZ/2026 to ITA No.910/VIZ/2026 are filed by the different assessees for the A.Y.2020-2021 and A.Y.2021-2022 respectively, as tabulated above, from Sl.No.1 to 14 were heard on 27.10.2026.
ITA No. 918/VIZ/2026 filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2021-22 which is mentioned at Sl.No. 15 of above-mentioned table, heard on 28.10.2026.
Batch of appeals being ITA No. 915/VIZ/2026, ITA No. 916/VIZ/2026, ITA No. 919/VIZ/2026 to ITA No. 924/VIZ/2026 are filed by the different assessees for the A.Y.2020-2021 and A.Y.2021-2022 respectively, as tabulated above from Sl.No.16 to 23 were heard on 29.10.2026.
Even though, the above captioned appeals are heard on different dates i.e., on 27.10.2026, 28.10.2026 & 29.10.2026, since common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are disposed of by this common order.
First, we take up the appeal in ITA No.897/VIZ/2026 for the A.Y.2020-21, and findings of this appeal will apply mutatis mutandis to the other connected appeals also.
Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the A.Y.2020-21. In the case of the assessee, the return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter in short “the Act”]. However, subsequent to intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act, assessee with considerable delay, realized that assessee paid excess tax in respect of ex-gratia compensation received from his employer i.e., BSNL under VRS Scheme-2019. Accordingly, an appeal has been filed before the Ld. CIT(A) for claiming the refund of excess income tax paid by the assessee.
The assessee retired during the F.Y.2019-20 under the VRS Scheme and received an ex-gratia amount of Rs.7,23,361/-. The assessee filed return of income after claiming exemption of Rs.5,00,000/- under Section 10 of the Act, which was processed by Centralized Processing Centre. Against the order passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) stating that, assessee is entitled for entire amount of Rs.7,23,361/- as exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee stated that the issue was covered as per the judgment of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Harish Kumar v. ITO in ITA No.42/CHD/2025, wherein the Tribunal has allowed exemption under the second proviso to Section 10(10B) of the Act, on account of ex-gratia amount received from employer i.e., BSNL under the BSNL VRS Scheme-2019. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating that while opting VRS Scheme, it is not on account of retrenchment, hence assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s. 10(10B) of the Act.
Still aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
At the time of hearing, the authorized representative categorically stated that, the instant issue is covered by the judgment of the ITAT Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO in ITA Nos. 255 & 256/VIZ/2026 dated 21.08.2026, wherein, in batch of the cases, Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee u/s. 10(10B) of the Act.
On the other hand, learned departmental representative supported the decision of the authorities below. He categorically stated that, the order passed by Ld.CIT(A) rightly dismissed the claim of the assessee, as scheme under which the assessee received ex-gratia was under VRS Scheme, not under retrenchment. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) rightly passed the order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. But regarding the judgment of the Tribunal, he could not controvert the fact. The Ld.DR also filed his detailed written submission in the following manner: -
“Oral arguments are held in the bunch of cases on 27.10.2026, 28.10.2026 and 29.10.2026in the case of BSNL retired employees (List of the cases enclosed). The summary of arguments made by the Sr.Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue are being presented in this Written Brief: I. FACTS OF THE CASES AND DIPUTED ISSUE: 1. Nature of the Original Claims and Conduct of the Assessees: All the appellants are former employees of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) who opted for the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 (VRS-2019), consciously filed their original returns 12 of income for the relevant Assessment Years. In doing so, the assessees treated the ex-gratia compensation received under the scheme as a Voluntary Retirement compensation, claiming limited statutory exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and duly offered the balance amount to tax. Taxes were also appropriately withheld and deducted at source (TDS) by the employer in accordance with the law. 2. Belated Shift in Stance: After having accepted the classification of the receipt under Section 10(10C) for years, the Assessee has now sought to fundamentally re-characterize the receipt before the appellate authorities as "Retrenchment Compensation" to claim 100% exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. 3. Condonation of Delay: In all these cases, appeals were filed by the appellants before JCIsT (A) belatedly with substantial delay. In some cases JCsIT(A) did not condone the delay. In some cases, JCsIT(A) condoned the delay and decided the cases are merits. 4. Claim of Leave Encashment: In some of the cases, fresh claims of exemption towards leave encashment under section 10(10AA)(i) have also been made by filing additional grounds. II. SUBMISSIONS ON MERITS: BSNL VRS-2019 FALLS EXCLUSIVELY UNDER SECTION 10(10C), NOT SECTION 10(10B) The Revenue submits that the attempt by the Assessee to bypass Section 10(10C)—the specific provision enacted by Parliament governing voluntary retirements in public sector companies-and invoke Section 10(10B) is contrary to the statutory framework, binding CBDT directives, and settled principles of statutory interpretation. The denial of JCsIT(A) on condonation of delay is justifiable since the assessees did not make the claim in the original returns of income. Only after knowing certain judicial pronouncements in cases of others, the assessees tried to recharacterize the claims for getting the refunds which can not be allowed as per Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT. 1. Express Statutory Coverage under Section 10(10C): Section 10(10C) of the Act specifically exempts any amount received by an employee of a public sector company on their voluntary retirement or termination of service in accordance with any scheme or schemes of voluntary retirement. BSL is a public sector company, and the VRS-2019 was introduced expressly as a Voluntary Retirement Scheme pursuant to the Union Cabinet's revival package. Therefore, legislative intent explicitly targets such schemes under Section 10(10C), subjecting them to the statutory ceiling limit (currently 75 Lakhs). 2. Inapplicability of Section 10(10B) and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: • Section 10(10B) applies strictly to compensation received by a workman at the time of retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA). • Section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act explicitly excludes "voluntary retirement of the workman" from the definition of retrenchment. • Where an employee exercises a positive, voluntary option on an online portal to exit service under a notified scheme, the cessation of employment is born out of mutual novation/ voluntary choice and lacks the unilateral, involuntary character of "retrenchment". 3. Distinction from the Hindustan Photo Films (HPF) Precedent: • Assessees frequently-place heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre v. Government of India. • The Revenue submits that HPF is clearly distinguishable on facts. In HPF, the company was undergoing an actual winding- up process and closure authorized directly by the Government as a terminal severance package, where employees had no active voluntary scheme to opt into. • Conversely, BSNL VRS-2019 was formulated as part of an ongoing enterprise's: Revival Package (involving 4G spectrum allocation, debt restructuring, and right-sizing) designed to maintain BSL as a going concern, requiring employees to actively and voluntarily submit option forms. 4. CBDT Clarification (F. No. 173/32/2026-ITA-I): The Central Board of Direct Taxes, vide its explicit clarification dated October 22, 2026, examined this exact controversy in consultation with the Department of Telecommunications. The CBDT has clarified that the ex-gratia compensation paid under BSNL and MTNL VRS-2019 is strictly in the nature of compensation received on voluntary retirement—s employees voluntarily exercised option forms and remained entitled to pensionary benefits under CCS Rules-and is consequently governed solely by Section 10(10C) of the Act, precluding any application of Section 10(10B). (Copy of the CBDT clarification letter is enclosed). This CBDT clarification was not available before JCsIT(A) while deciding the appeals. 5. Additional Grounds on Leave Encashment: The Revenue submits that the additional ground filed by the assesses claiming exemption of leave encashment under section 10(10AA)(i), at this stage, should not be admitted because the facts with regard to whether the claim of the assessee under section 10(10AA)(i) of the Act is in accordance with provisions of law, or not, cannot be verified unless the basic details as to the employees is available. III. MAINTAINABILITY OF NEW CLAIMS AT THE APPELLATE STAGE WITHOUT REVISED RETURNS 1. Absence of Claim in Original/Revised Returns: The Assessee failed to make any claim under Section 10(10B) in their original return or within the statutory time permissible for filing a revised return. 2. Bar on Entertainment of Fresh Claims: In terms of the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), an Assessing Officer has no power to entertain a fresh claim/deduction otherwise than by way of a revised return of income. While appellate authorities possess plenary powers under specific circumstances, entertaining a complete re- classification of income from VRS (Section 10(10C)) to Retrenchment (Section 10(10B)) -which requires deep factual verification regarding the status of the employee, option mechanics, and statutory conditions-without a proper statutory revision or proper foundational facts on record during assessment, prejudices the tax administration and stretches appellate jurisdiction beyond permissible legal limits. PRAYER In light of the above statutory provisions and the CBDT clarification dated October 22, 2026, the Revenue respectfully prays that: 1. The decisions of JCsIT(A) in restricting the exemption of the BSL VRS-2019 ex-gratia compensation under Section 10(10C) of the Act be upheld as legally correct and justified. 2. The Assessee's claim seeking complete exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act be rejected on merits as well as on maintainability. 3. The additional ground filed by the assesses claiming exemption of leave encashment under section 10(10AA)(i) may not be admitted. 4. The appeals filed by the Assessees may be dismissed upholding the decisions of first appellate authorities.”
We, after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that in the present case of the assessee, assessee has claimed compensation received from its employer under VRS Scheme as exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act, whereas assessee has claimed under the wrong provisions of the Act. Therefore, following the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO in ITA Nos. 255 & 256/VIZ/2026 dated 21.08.2026, we remit this issue to the file of Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh after considering the claim of the assessee in accordance with law, following the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO in ITA Nos. 255 & 256/VIZ/2026 dated 21.08.2026. In terms of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Now coming to the other appeals, the learned Authorized Representative stated that in ITA No. 898/VIZ/2026, ITA No. 899/VIZ/2026, ITA No.900/VIZ/2026, ITA No.905/VIZ/2026, ITA No. 906/VIZ/2026, ITA No.907/VIZ/2026, ITA No. 908/VIZ/2026, ITA No. 910/VIZ/2026, ITA No. 915/VIZ/2026, ITA No. 916/VIZ/2026, ITA No. 919/VIZ/2026, ITA No. 920/VIZ/2026, ITA No. 921/VIZ/2026 and ITA No. 922/VIZ/2026, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) were that, the amount received from the employer was on VRS Scheme, not retrenchment. Therefore, assessee cannot claim the entire amount as exemption u/s. 10(10B) of the Act. Similarly, Ld.AR further stated that ITA No.901/VIZ/2026, ITA No.902/VIZ/2026 and ITA No.918/VIZ/2026, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) were that assessee did not claim in the return of income, therefore claim of the assessee was denied. Ld.AR in respect of other appeals, being ITA No. 903/VIZ/2026, ITA No. 904/VIZ/2026, ITA No. 909/VIZ/2026, ITA No. 923/VIZ/2026 & ITA No. 924/VIZ/2026 stated that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without going into the merits of the case, by stating that the appeals were barred by limitation. Therefore, this issue needs to be examined and following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Venkata
Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO in ITA Nos. 255 & 256/VIZ/2026 dated 21.08.2026, the appeals may be allowed.
Learned authorized representative further stated that in ITA No.899/VIZ/2026, ITA No.901/VIZ/2026, ITA No. 903/VIZ/2026 & ITA No. 921/VIZ/2026, assessee has raised an additional ground relating to the claim of exemption u/s.10(10AA) (i) of the Act, towards leave salary exemption and stated that such claims was not made in the return due to bonafide mistake. Therefore, the entire amount received towards leave salary may be allowed as exemption under the provisions of the Act. In this connection also, AR relied on the decision of the ITAT in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO in ITA Nos. 255 & 256/VIZ/2026 dated 21.08.2026, wherein the Tribunal has set aside the issue to the file of Assessing Officer with direction to decide the issue by considering the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sanchar Nigam Pensioners Welfare Association v. Union of India (February 2026) in Writ Petition No. 16360 of 2023 dated 06.02.2026.
On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the decision of the authorities below.
We, after hearing the submissions of the parties and considering the material facts, we find that Coordinate Bench already taken up the instant issue and set-aside the matter to the file of assessing officer in connection with the additional ground. Therefore, we set-aside entire batch of appeals, to the file of assessing officer with direction to re-examine all the issues and decide the issues after considering the coordinate bench judgment as in the case of Venkata
Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO in ITA Nos. 255 & 256/VIZ/2026 dated 21.08.2026 by giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with the law. In terms of the above, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, all the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on Oct, 2026
OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA SONJOY SARMA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Visakhapatnam Dated: Giridhar, Sr.PS Copy to: 1. SRINIVASA RAO 15. ITO, WARD-2(5) YELLUMAHANTI INFINITY TOWERS, 19-34/6, CHANDRA NAGAR, SANKARAMATAM ROAD, GOPALAPATNAM, SHANTHIPURAM - 530 016, YELLAPUVANIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM-530016, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530027, AP, ANDHRA PRADESH INDIA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530027, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. VIJAYA LAKSHMI ARUMUGAM 16. ITO, WARD-2(5) FLAT NO.101, SAIDEEP INFINITY TOWERS, APARTMENTS, LB COLONY SHANKARAMATAM ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM-530017, SHANTHIPURAM, ANDHRA PRADESH VISAKHAPATNAM-530016, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. BHAGYALAKSHMI LINGOJU 17. ITO, WARD-1(1) 4-423, NAVA BHARATH NAGAR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BOMMUR, RAJAHMUNDRY - VEERABHADRAPURAM, 533107, E.G.DISTRICT, RAJAHMUNDRY - 533105, RAJAHMUNDRY-533107, ANDHRA E.G.DISTRICT, AP, INDIA PRADESH RAJAHMUNDRY-533105, ANDHRA PRADESH 4. NAGA SATYA VENKATA 18. ITO, WARD-1 RAMANA GUNDU INCOME TAX OFFICE, FLAT NO.G4, SWATHI JUVVALAPALEM ROAD, APARTMENTS, GUNDUVARI PETA, NEAR IMPERIAL HOSPITAL, SRIRAMPURAM, BHIMAVARAM- BHIMAVARAM-534202, 533202, ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH 5. DARA VARA PRASAD RAJA 19. ITO, WARD-2(5) SHEKAR RATNAKARAN INFINITY TOWERS, DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, SANKARAMATAM ROAD, TRANSMISSION PROJECTS, BSNL, SHANTHIPURAM - 530016, CTO COMPOUND, VELAMPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530016, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 001, ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH 6. RAMBABU GUBBALA 20. ITO, WARD-1 PHONE MECHANIC, BSNL, INCOME TAX OFFICE, KOTHAPETA MANDAL, COLLEGE ROAD, KOTHAPETA - 533223, AP, INDIA, KONKAPALLI ROAD, AMALAPURAM-533223, ANDHRA AMALAPURAM-533201, PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH
HEMA TIRUMAREDDY 21. ITO, WARD-1 5-75, SUGUNAKRISHNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, 3RD RAJPRAKASH STREET, FLOOR, SRI DEEPTHI PRATAPNAGAR, KAKINADA- TOWERS, MAIN ROAD, 533004, ANDHRA PRADESH RAMARAO PETA, KAKINADA-533001, ANDHRA PRADESH 8. KUSAKUMAR GEDDADA 22. ITO, WARD-1 18-129/1, COTTON PETA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, 3RD DOWLAISWARAM, FLOOR, SRI DEEPTHI RAJAHMUNDRY - 533125, TOWERS, MAIN ROAD, E.G.DISTRICT, AP, INDIA, RAMARAO PETA, RAJAHMUNDRY-533125, ANDHRA KAKINADA-533001, PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH 9. KOMARTHI MURALIKRISHNA, 23. ITO, WARD-1(1), 55-7-44-4, THOLAT SCHOOL BACK AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SIDE, DANAVAIPETA, VEERABHADRAPURAM, RAJAHMUNDRY - 533103, RAJAHMUNDRY - 533105, E.G.DISTRICT, AP, INDIA, E.G. DISTRICT, AP, INDIA, RAJAHMUNDRY-533103, RAJAHMUNDRY-533103, ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATA SATYANARAYANA 24. ITO, WARD -1, BANDI BHIMAVARAM D.NO.10-113/1 UNDI, GOWDA PETA INCOME TAX OFFICE, OPP RAMALAYAM WEST BHIMAVARAM. GODAVARI 534199 ,ANDHRA WEST GODAVARI DIST.- PRADESH, WEST GODAVARI 534199, ANDHRA PRADESH DIST.-534199, ANDHRA PRADESH
KOLASANI VEERAIAH 25. ITO, WARD-1(1) CHOWDARY INCOME TAX OFFICER, 4-6-1, RING ROAD, KORETIPADU, WARD-1(1), 2ND FLOOR, GUNTUR-522007, ANDHRA STANDARD HOUSE, PRADESH, INDIA, GUNTUR-522007, NAGARAMPALEM, ANDHRA PRADESH GUNTUR-522004, ANDHRA PRADESH 12. PRAGATHY ORUGANTI 26. ITO, WARD-1(1) F4, MAYURI HOMES, 1ST LINE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- CHANDRAMOULI NAGAR, 1(1), 2ND FLOOR, STANDARD HOUSE, NAGARAMPALEM, GUNTUR-522007, ANDHRA GUNTUR-522004, PRADESH, INDIA, ANDHRA PRADESH
KOLASANI NAGESWARA RAO 27. ITO, WARD-1(1) 4-22-21, KORITEPADU, 3RD LINE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHAITANYAPURI, GUNTUR - WARD-1(1), 2ND FLOOR, 522007, ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA, STANDARD HOUSE, GUNTUR-522007, ANDHRA NAGARAMPALEM, PRADESH GUNTUR-522004, ANDHRA PRADESH 14. HARIBABU MALLIPEDDI 28. ITO, WARD-2(1) 15-11-33/18M MANGALAGIRI INCOME TAX OFFICER, ROAD, NANDAMURI COLONY, WARD-2(1), STANDARD GUNTUR-522001, HOUSE, NAGARAMPALEM, GUNTUR-522004, ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH,
29 THE PCIT / CIT, 30 THE D.R., ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH 31 GUARD FILE
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 →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
