← All Phrases

“Section 10(108)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(108)12 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(108) is CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar (54 Taxmann.com 108), cited in 279 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(108)

CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar
54 Taxmann.com 108 · 2015 · High Court
279
citing judgments

Transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares cannot be considered bogus where the assessee provides documentary evidence, unless the revenue brings substantial evidence on record to reject such proof. This principle is consistently applied in cases concerning claims of bogus long-term capital gains arising from penny stock transactions.

Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
377 ITR 533 · 2015 · High Court
196
citing judgments

Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) service providers are functionally dissimilar to Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) or Information Technology Enabled Services (ITeS) providers and cannot be compared for transfer pricing purposes, even under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). Further, companies with significantly different business models, such as those with extensive subcontracting, should be excluded as comparables.

DCIT v. Syncame Formulations (I) Ltd.
108 TTJ 105 · ITAT
17
citing judgments

A special bench of the ITAT held that an assessee can claim an enhanced deduction under Section 153A proceedings, which are comparable to Sections 147/148, even if the original return was filed under Section 139(1). This is because Section 153A proceedings provide an opportunity for making fresh claims.

Judgments citing Section 10(108)

Chhaganlal Bhimabhai Dangodara, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed…”

ITA 2548/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Kumarbhai R Pandya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(108)Section 250

this amount is Retrenchment Compensation Received From Central Government Under the Scheme Approved By Central Government is fully exempted from Income Tax Under Section 10(108) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The compensation amount receipts in the hands of assessee as an employee of the BSNL, pursuant to the severance

Chhaganlal Bhimabhai Dangodara, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed…”

ITA 2547/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Kumarbhai R Pandya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(108)Section 250

this amount is Retrenchment Compensation Received From Central Government Under the Scheme Approved By Central Government is fully exempted from Income Tax Under Section 10(108) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The compensation amount receipts in the hands of assessee as an employee of the BSNL, pursuant to the severance

Suman Nandlal Raval, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward 1, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2390/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(108)Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

filing the appeal without appreciating that the delay occurred solely due to the Appellants bonafide ignorance regarding the availability of exemption under Section 10(108) and lack of legal knowledge. These circumstances constitute a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 249(3) of the Income ... identical to Lrd.Harish Kumar vs. ITOLrd. (ITA No. 42/CHD/2025), where compensation received under the same BSNL VRS-2019 was held fully exempt under Section 10(108). The Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the merits despite the existence of a legitimate, legally sustainable, and directly applicable claim under Section 10

Suman Nandlal Raval, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward 1, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2389/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(108)Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

filing the appeal without appreciating that the delay occurred solely due to the Appellants bonafide ignorance regarding the availability of exemption under Section 10(108) and lack of legal knowledge. These circumstances constitute a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 249(3) of the Income ... identical to Lrd.Harish Kumar vs. ITOLrd. (ITA No. 42/CHD/2025), where compensation received under the same BSNL VRS-2019 was held fully exempt under Section 10(108). The Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the merits despite the existence of a legitimate, legally sustainable, and directly applicable claim under Section 10

Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2388/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 10(100)Section 10(108)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 251

offered to tax by the appellant in the return of income due to lack of awareness about the availability of exemption under Section 10(108) of the Income Tax Act. 1961. The employer had also deducted TDS on the said amount. No exemption was claimed in the original or revised

Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2387/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 10(100)Section 10(108)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 251

offered to tax by the appellant in the return of income due to lack of awareness about the availability of exemption under Section 10(108) of the Income Tax Act. 1961. The employer had also deducted TDS on the said amount. No exemption was claimed in the original or revised

Satinder Paul Through L/H Neelam Saini, Pinjore vs. Income Tax Officer, Panchkula

In the result, the ground no

ITA 136/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(10)Section 143(1)

approve in its behalf. The compensation which is received by the workmen would fall within the definition of compensation found in explanation to Section 10(108). 32. In such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the package having been received by the workmen as compensation pursuant ... time of VRS Appellant by way of revised return claimed that the said compensation is exempt under Second proviso and first explanation of Section 10(108) of Act. For this appellant placed reliance on the case of Hindustan Photo Film Workers Vs. The Government of India WP No.18566

Dayal Singh, Vill Fatehpur Po Burewala vs. ITO Ward-1, Panchkula

In the result, the ground no

ITA 519/CHANDI/2024[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 519/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम Dayal Singh, The Ito, Vill Fatehpur Ward -1, Po Burewala Panchkula Distt.Amabla 134204 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acdps7697G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Y.R. Saini, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2024 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl. / Jcit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assess Ee In This Appeal H As Taken Foll Owing Groun Ds Of Appeal: 1 That In The F Acts & Circumstance Of The Case The Id. Addl/Jcit (A)-9 Mumbai Of Cit (A)( Nfac) Has Erred In Law By Placing Reliance On Judgement Of Hon'Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Maji Sinneman Vs Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Y.R. Saini, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

approve in its behalf. The compensation which is received by the workmen would fall within the definition of compensation found in explanation to Section 10(108). 32. In such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the package having been received by the workmen as compensation pursuant ... time of VRS Appellant by way of revised return claimed that the said compensation is exempt under Second proviso and first explanation of Section 10(108) of Act. For this appellant placed reliance on the case of Hindustan Photo Film Workers Vs. The Government of India WP No.18566

Nirmala Rani L/H of Sh. Azad Singh, Pinjore vs. ITO, Ward -1, Panchkula

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Of.

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(10)Section 25FSection 89(1)

approve in its behalf. The compensation which is received by the workmen would fall within the definition of compensation found in explanation to Section 10(108). 32. In such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the package having been received by the workmen as compensation pursuant ... time of VRS Appellant by way of revised return claimed that the said compensation is exempt under Second proviso and first explanation of Section 10(108) of Act. For this appellant placed reliance on the case of Hindustan Photo Film Workers Vs. The Government of India WP No.18566

Naresh Kumar Kamboj, Zirakpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Pandey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

approve in its behalf. The compensation which is received by the workmen would fall within the definition of compensation found in explanation to Section 10(108). 32. In such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the package having been received by the workmen as compensation pursuant ... time of VRS Appellant by way of revised return claimed that the said compensation is exempt under Second proviso and first explanation of Section 10(108) of Act. For this appellant placed reliance on the case of Hindustan Photo Film Workers Vs. The Government of India WP No.18566

Sh. Sohan Lal, Pinjore vs. ITO, Ward -3, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(10)Section 25F

approve in its behalf. The compensation which is received by the workmen would fall within the definition of compensation found in explanation to Section 10(108). 32. In such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the package having been received by the workmen as compensation pursuant ... time of VRS Appellant by way of revised return claimed that the said compensation is exempt under Second proviso and first explanation of Section 10(108) of Act. For this appellant placed reliance on the case of Hindustan Photo Film Workers Vs. The Government of India WP No.18566

Sh. Martin Ekka S/O Sh. Lalsay Ekka, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward -1, Panchkula

In the result, the ground no

ITA 281/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

approve in its behalf. The compensation which is received by the workmen would fall within the definition of compensation found in explanation to Section 10(108). 32. In such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the package having been received by the workmen as compensation pursuant ... time of VRS Appellant by way of revised return claimed that the said compensation is exempt under Second proviso and first explanation of Section 10(108) of Act. For this appellant placed reliance on the case of Hindustan Photo Film Workers Vs. The Government of India WP No.18566