“Section 10(10)(i)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(10)(i)9 judgments

NARENDRA RAMCHANDRA DESHPANDE,WARDHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARDHA, WARDHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 507/NAG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalenarendra Ramdhandra Deshpande Manorama Complex, Sudampuri Arvi Road, Wardha -442 001, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Aazpd4477F V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–1, Wardha, ……………. Respondent Ito, Building, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Amolkalavikatte.A.R. Revenue By :Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.AmolKalavikatte.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 10(10)(i)

learned Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing the appellant claim of exemption of rs.56,698/- in respect of gratuity under section 10(10)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by incorrectly treating the appellant as not being a government employee. 2 Narendra Ramdhandra Deshpande ITA no.507/NAG./2025 ... income of Rs.10,22,280/-. The assessing officer find that the assessee has claimed excess claim of (i) exemption of gratuity under section 10(10)(1) of the act and (ii) excess claim of leave encashment under section 10(10AA

ASHWANI KUMAR SHARMA,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1 PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 652/CHANDI/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Section 10Section 10(10)(i)Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

gone through\nthe material available on the record, to resolve the present controversy it is relevant to\ndiscuss the provisions contained in Section 10(10)(i), (ii) & (iii) of the Act which read as\nunder:\n\"(10) (i) any death- 'cum- retirement gratuity received under the revised ... nwhich were available before their transfer i.e. when they were the employee of the\nState Government. As per the provisions contained in Section 10(10)(i) of the Act,\nthe exemption was available for death-cum-retirement gratuity to the employees of\nthe State Government, therefore, the assessee

RAMESH HARISHANKAR TIWARI,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 587/NAG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Umang AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(10)(i)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.587/NAG./2024

ANIL KUMAR PRUTHI,HISAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 691/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmananil Kumar Pruthi, Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Jagan Nath Ward-1, Hisar. Pruthi, Vs. 165, Sector-15A, Hisar-125001, Haryana. Pan:Aaspp4439J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 133(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

previous year or years.' 5. A careful perusal of the above provision indicates that if a case falls under clause (i) of section 10(10), the entire amount of death-cum- retirement gratuity becomes exempt. Au contraire, if a case falls under sub-clause (iii) of section 10 ... date. To be more specific, the question is as to whether the extant case falls under clause (i) or clause (iii) of section 10(10). If a case does not fall under clause (i), it will automatically go to clause (iii). On a specific query from the Bench

MOHAN SHRINIWAS BHISE,SANGLI vs. ITO WARD 3, SANGLI, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions

ITA 900/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amol R. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 69

erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that, the appellant was a Government employee as covered in Section 10(10)(i) and Section 10(10AA) (i) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts ... Industries Energy and Labour Department of Government of Maharashtra and under Electricity Act, 2003. The assessee is covered by the provisions of section 10(10)(i) and section 10(10AA)(i) of the Act available to State Government employees or holders of Civil Posts under the State

SHRI ADINATH VASANTRAO WANDHEKAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-4, PANVEL, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 1388/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1388/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Adinath Vasantrao Wandhekar, At Post-Shevgaon, Davakinadan Khandoba Ngr., Ahmednagar-414502 Pan: Aaepw7481P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Prasad Bhandari [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [Ld. DR’]

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 10(10)(i)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

sector undertaking and not a government, hence restricted the claim of exemption of Gratuity to ₹10,00,000/- u/c (ii) of section 10(10) and Leave Encashment to ₹3,00,000/- u/c (ii) of section 10(10AA) of the Act. As result application of ceiling

JAIPAL SINGH DENDSAY,KARNAL vs. ITO WARD-1, KARNAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 661/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Prem Rajpal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Siddharth Bhim Singh, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(10)(i)Section 143(1)Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘C’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

SURESH KUMAR ARORA,HISAR vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed as above

ITA 22/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hearing Of Appeal, Which Is Illegal. Hence Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) & Order Of The Assessing Officer, Must Be Quashed.”

For Appellant: Shri V Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 10(10)Section 10(10)(ii)Section 10(10)(iii)Section 147

total income of Rs.11,37,656/-. The learned Assessing Officer observed that assessee has claimed excess gratuity of Rs.6,50,000/- under section 10(10) of the Income-tax Act and the Assessing Officer was of the view that assessee is not entitled for this claim because ... state government and eligible for exemption u/s, 10(10)(i) of Income Tax Act. He is not covered by Section 10(10)(ii) as he did not receive gratuity under the payment of gratuity Act, 1972. Hence, employees of the University are covered U/s. 10

CHANDAN LAL GOSWAMI,HISAR vs. ITO, HISAR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3620/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatssessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10Section 10(10)(ii)Section 10(10)(iii)Section 250

assessee is found to be an employee holding a civil post under a State, in my considered opinion, the provisions of section 10(10(i) are fully attracted in this case entitling him to exemption for the amount under consideration. Once a case falls under clause ... section 10(10), the same cannot be brought within the purview of clause (iii) of section 10(10). I, therefore, hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 10(10)(i) in 4 respect of gratuity amount received in total upto Rs. 10