ITAT Pune Judgments — September 2026

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 a capital receipt exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal reasoned that this issue was squarely covered by its own previous decision in the case of Prathibha Jagdish Unawane Vs. ITO, as well as decisions from other coordinate benches and the ITAT Ahmedabad. The Tribunal emphasized that the substance of the transaction, rather than its form, determined its nature, and that payments made under such schemes, especially when employees are facing potential dislocation, should be viewed pragmatically as termination of employment with compensation. The impugned findings of the CIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers, claiming exemption under Section 10(10B), and the Revenue authorities were to grant refunds after due verification. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.

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 a capital receipt exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal reasoned that this issue was squarely covered by its own previous decision in the case of Prathibha Jagdish Unawane Vs. ITO, as well as decisions from other coordinate benches and the ITAT Ahmedabad. The Tribunal emphasized that the substance of the transaction, rather than its form, determined its nature, and that payments made under such schemes, especially when employees are facing potential dislocation, should be viewed pragmatically as termination of employment with compensation. The impugned findings of the CIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers, claiming exemption under Section 10(10B), and the Revenue authorities were to grant refunds after due verification. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty. The Tribunal found sufficient evidence, including seized documents and the broker's statement corroborated during cross-examination, to establish that the assessee had indeed received cash loans.

The Tribunal allowed the legal ground raised by the assessee regarding limitation. It noted that the AO issued the notice under Section 148 on 05.04.2022 for AY 2015-16, after a lapse of more than three years from the end of the assessment year. As per Section 149(1) of the Act, no notice can be issued after a lapse of three years from the end of the assessment year if the alleged escapement of income is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. In this case, the alleged escapement was Rs. 40,53,313/-, which is below Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the AO had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148, making it bad in law and the consequential assessment order void-ab-initio. Consequently, the Tribunal did not comment on the merits of the addition. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the ex-gratia compensation under BSNL VRS 2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B). The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. Citing the Bombay High Court's decision in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal emphasized that Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and rendering a decision on each point with reasons. The CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal de novo and provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. The issue regarding the addition of estimated commission income was not adjudicated on merits by the Tribunal as the matter was remitted to the Ld. CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the interest income of Rs. 46,79,216/- earned by the assessee from deposits with Maharashtra Gramin Bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank, the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court's ruling in Vavveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd., and the Kerala High Court's judgment in Pr.CIT Vs. Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. These decisions established that interest earned by co-operative credit societies from funds deposited with banks, where such deposits are made from income derived from their primary business of providing credit facilities, is considered business income attributable to their main activity and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal noted that the facts of the present case were identical to those in the cited precedents. Consequently, the AO was directed to delete the addition. The issue regarding interest under Sections 234B and 234A was not explicitly decided as the appeal was allowed on the primary ground of Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) was not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution and was obligated to decide the appeal on its merits, as per Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), which categorically states that the Ld. CIT(A) must dispose of an appeal in writing, stating the points for determination and rendering a decision on each point with reasons. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal without discussing the merits of the case, which is contrary to the statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, with a direction to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the ex-gratia compensation under BSNL VRS 2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B). The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent assessment order passed by the Ld. AO as bad in law. The primary reason for this decision was that the notice under Section 148 was issued on April 13, 2022, which is beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year (2018-19). As per Section 151(1)(ii) of the Act, for reopening beyond three years, the approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, or Principal Director General or Director General of Income Tax. However, the AO obtained approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which was not the competent authority in this case. The Tribunal respectfully followed a decision of a co-ordinate bench in the case of other family members of the assessee, which had quashed reassessment proceedings on identical grounds. Since the assessee succeeded on this legal issue, the other grounds challenging the reassessment on different legal grounds and the grounds challenging the additions on merit were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

The Tribunal decided on the following issues: 1. Grounds of appeal No.1 and 3 were dismissed as 'not pressed' by the assessee, with no objection from the revenue. 2. Regarding Ground No.2 (capacity underutilization adjustment), the Tribunal noted the assessee's arguments and the rejection by the TPO and CIT(A). The assessee provided data from SIAM and a certificate of installed capacity, but discrepancies led to rejection. The assessee also submitted revised SIAM reports. The Tribunal did not provide a definitive finding on this ground in the provided excerpt, but it was listed as an issue to be decided. 3. Regarding Ground No.4 and the additional ground (group service charges/R&D fees), the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission. It was acknowledged that the assessee received R&D fees of Rs.23.24 crores, which it considered operating income, but the TPO and CIT(A) treated it as non-operating. The assessee argued that if the income is non-operating, the corresponding expenditure of Rs.19.37 crores should be excluded from operating expenditure. The Tribunal agreed with this contention, directing the TPO to exclude the expenditure incurred for earning the R&D fees (Rs.19.37 crores) when determining the assessee's operating margins. The TPO was also directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. Grounds 4 and the additional ground were allowed for statistical purposes. Operative Directions: The TPO is directed to exclude Rs.19.37 crores of expenditure related to R&D fees from operating expenditure and re-determine the operating margins. The assessee is to be given an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 60 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's inability to respond to notices from the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) due to his critical medical condition, lumbar spondylosis, as supported by his affidavit and medical certificate. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was incapacitated and unaware of the proceedings. Consequently, the order of the Learned CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Learned CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The Learned CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and to consider all necessary details to be filed by the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the matter should be remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for de novo adjudication of the application for approval under Section 80G. This was based on the material on record, including the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal and the subsequent orders of the Ld. CIT(E) granting registration under Section 12A of the Act for the relevant assessment years. The Ld. DR did not present any material to controvert the assessee's arguments. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) and restored the issue back to his file for fresh adjudication, after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to comply with the notices of hearing without unnecessary adjournment. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the disputed issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that non-compliance with notices was not wilful, citing the closure of the firm and unavailability of staff. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present its case with supporting evidence. The assessee was directed to cooperate in submitting information for an early disposal of the appeal. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 dated July 28, 2022, for AY 2017-18 was approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nashik. It was noted that this fact was not disputed by the Revenue. As per Section 151(ii) of the Act, when more than three years have elapsed from the end of the assessment year, the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner is required. Since the approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner, it was not by the specified authority under Section 151 of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Holiday Developers (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO and Alag Property Construction (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, which had quashed similar notices for AY 2017-18 where approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner. The Tribunal also noted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decisions had duly considered the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Rajiv Bansal. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax after a lapse of 3 years from the end of the assessment year, was bad in law and quashed. Consequently, the reassessment order was also held to be bad in law. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed, and the order of the Learned CIT(A) was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had inadvertently selected an inapplicable sub-clause for filing the application for regular registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) instead of the correct sub-clause applicable to it as an existing registered trust. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments that the wrong selection of the section code/clause would not disentitle the assessee to its rightful claim. Citing decisions of Co-ordinate Benches, particularly in the case of Samarth Bharat Sanskar Kendra and Buddhadev Educational Charitable Trust, the Tribunal noted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to treat the application as filed under the correct clause/section code and decide it afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to file the correct application if needed and make necessary compliance without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

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.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeals as unadmitted and time-barred. The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed appeals against the Section 154 orders, and these appeals were filed within the statutory time limit. The Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the appeal was delayed by 11 years was factually incorrect as it was based on the date of the original Section 200A intimation rather than the date of the Section 154 order against which the appeal was filed. The Tribunal emphasized that an order under Section 154 is an independent order, and the assessee has a right to file an appeal against it. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the assessee's appeals and decide the issues on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present their case with evidence.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeals as unadmitted and time-barred. The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed appeals against the Section 154 orders, and these appeals were filed within the statutory time limit. The Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the appeal was delayed by 11 years was factually incorrect as it was based on the date of the original Section 200A intimation rather than the date of the Section 154 order against which the appeal was filed. The Tribunal emphasized that an order under Section 154 is an independent order, and the assessee has a right to file an appeal against it. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the assessee's appeals and decide the issues on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeals as unadmitted and time-barred. The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed appeals against the Section 154 orders, and these appeals were filed within the statutory time limit. The Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the appeal was delayed by 11 years was factually incorrect as it was based on the date of the original Section 200A intimation rather than the date of the Section 154 order against which the appeal was filed. The Tribunal emphasized that an order under Section 154 is an independent order, and the assessee has a right to file an appeal against it. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the assessee's appeals and decide the issues on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeals as unadmitted and time-barred. The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed appeals against the Section 154 orders, and these appeals were filed within the statutory time limit. The Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the appeal was delayed by 11 years was factually incorrect as it was based on the date of the original Section 200A intimation rather than the date of the Section 154 order against which the appeal was filed. The Tribunal emphasized that an order under Section 154 is an independent order, and the assessee has a right to file an appeal against it. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the assessee's appeals and decide the issues on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeals as unadmitted and time-barred. The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed appeals against the Section 154 orders, and these appeals were filed within the statutory time limit. The Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the appeal was delayed by 11 years was factually incorrect as it was based on the date of the original Section 200A intimation rather than the date of the Section 154 order against which the appeal was filed. The Tribunal emphasized that an order under Section 154 is an independent order, and the assessee has a right to file an appeal against it. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the assessee's appeals and decide the issues on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following previous ITAT decisions.