BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

22 results for “disallowance”+ Section 256(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai316Delhi226Jaipur103Chennai92Bangalore80Ahmedabad75Cochin71Kolkata57SC39Raipur34Surat33Hyderabad33Nagpur30Chandigarh30Indore24Visakhapatnam23Pune22Lucknow20Guwahati11Rajkot10Allahabad6Patna6Agra5Jodhpur3Jabalpur3Cuttack3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Ranchi1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1Amritsar1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 14A27Section 80P(2)(a)16Section 143(3)15Addition to Income14Section 14812Disallowance11Section 25010Section 689Section 109Section 143(2)

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE PANVEL vs. OUTABOX MEDIA SOLUTIONS LLP, GHATKOPAR MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 177/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan H KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, the same should be upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. 14. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC as well as the ground raised by the assessee as per Rule 27 of the Rules. He submitted that the assessee filed

PRAJ INDUSTRIES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

8
Deduction8
Cash Deposit6
ITA 1413/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

2) and (3) of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D were applicable proceeded to compute the disallowance which according to him worked out to Rs.82,62,396/- reducing there from suo- moto disallowance of Rs.51,41,522/-, he made disallowance of Rs.33,20,874/- u/s 14A of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO completed the assessment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Chaugule &For Respondent: Shri Manish M. Mehta
Section 135Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(1)(ii)Section 80G(2)(a)Section 80G(5)(vi)

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by such order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC after considering the submissions of the assessee and relying on various decisions involving the impugned issue in favour of the assessee, deleted the addition of Rs.4

BALKRISHNA RATHI FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2328/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

section 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii) at Rs.16,63,575/-, ignoring the fact that investments yielding exempt income were made out of own funds in earlier years and no borrowed funds were utilized. 4 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the year under consideration the appellant company also earned the taxable interest income and therefore

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. GRIHUM HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1883/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Mutha and Abhilash HiranFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 2(91)Section 36(1)(va)

2), an intimation shall be sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable, and such intimation shall be Uday S. Jagtap 8 of 15 25-2000-ITR-Judgment=.doc deemed to be a notice of demand issued under section 156 and all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly ; and (ii) if any refund

E-ALLY SECURITIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,RAIGAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE, PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 109/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Samir ShahFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha - JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 14A

Disallowance under Section 14A of Rs.2,48,85,000/- as expenses to earn exempted Dividend income of Rs.1,80,30,965/- is per se absurd and 1 378 ITR 33 2 [2018] 256

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMPALGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1597/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1597/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Seti Sahakari Patsanstha S Income Tax Maryadit, Department, Delhi. Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Maharashtra – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 05.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

256 ITR 385) and thus the total deduction of Rs. 10,90,953/-disallowed u/s 80P(2)(a) (i) or 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act was not justified. 3. The Appellate craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATHASANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMAPALGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

ITA 1596/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita Nos.1596 & 1598/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Income Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha S Tax Department, Delhi. Maryadit, Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19, Both Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019 & 24.02.2021 Respectively. For The Sake Of

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

256 ITR 385) and thus the total deduction of Rs. 66,80,575/- disallowed u/s 80P(2)(a) (i) or 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act was not justified. 3. The Appellate craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATHASANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMPALGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

ITA 1598/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita Nos.1596 & 1598/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Income Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha S Tax Department, Delhi. Maryadit, Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19, Both Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019 & 24.02.2021 Respectively. For The Sake Of

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

256 ITR 385) and thus the total deduction of Rs. 66,80,575/- disallowed u/s 80P(2)(a) (i) or 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act was not justified. 3. The Appellate craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTA MARAYADIT,NASHIK vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1625/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1625/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Seti Sahakari Pathsanstha S. Income Tax Department, Maryadit, Delhi. Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Dayanand Jawalikar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 14/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18, Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

256 ITR 385) and thus the total deduction of Rs.66,80,575/-disallowed u/s 80P(2)(a) (i) or 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act was not justified. 3. The Appellate craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1678/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 548Section 54BSection 54B(1)Section 69A

disallowance of exemption u/s 548 in respect of investment in agricultural land and all the conditions have been complied with (iv) The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the appellant had made substantial payments towards consideration for purchase of the new agricultural land and possession was obtained in prescribed time thereby proving

NASHIK DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD NASHIK,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CANTER, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 727/PUN/2025[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.727/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2018-19 Nashik District Police Co- V The Income Tax Officer, Operative Credit Society Ltd., S National E Assessment Sagar Plaza, Third Floor, Above Centre, Delhi. Axis Bank, Audumbar Nagar, Mumbai Agra Road, Nashik – 422003. Pan: Aacan6075F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur – (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19 Dated 23.02.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 31.03.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 66Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

256 ITR 385) and thus the total deduction of Rs. 1,48,78,730/- disallowed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act was not justified. 5. The Appellate craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing

BANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. Notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time through Faceless assessment scheme in response to which the assessee filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment on 20.09.2022 determining the total income of the assessee at Nil. 4. Subsequently

SHAH CONSTRUCTIO,SATARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-SATARA, SATARA

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

ITA 617/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.617/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shah Construction, Vs Acit, Satara Parag, 286 2, Circle, Satara Budhwar Peth, Tal Karad, Dist Satara- 415110 Maharashtra Pan-Aaffs0461E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni
Section 119Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 156Section 250(6)Section 801Section 801ASection 80ASection 80I

2 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the claim of deduction of Rs. 67.25,256/- made under section 801A, Considering the genuine hardship faced the appellant firm the addition made rejecting the claim under section 801A be deleted. 4. On the facts

WARANA INDUSRIES LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, , KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1285/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: None (written submissions filed)For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

256/- d) Disallowance of foreign tour expenses of the director Smt. Surekha S. Gulave to USA Rs.9,28,290/- 4. So far as the disallowance of interest of Rs.4,15,71,718/- is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained an amount of Rs.27,01,163/- disallowed by the Assessing Officer u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act by observing

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

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

ITA 557/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri K P DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(1)Section 68Section 69C

2 working partners @ Rs.2,95,000/- each. The above remuneration includes salary, bonus and commission on fixed percentage. He referred to the relevant provisions of the Act and noted that as per partnership deed, neither the amount to be paid as 5 remuneration nor the manner of computing remuneration has been incorporated which is in violation of CBDT Circular No.739

ADHERE FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. AO, EXEMPTION WARD , PUNE

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

ITA 954/PUN/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.954/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Sushil VarmaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 8

2) Disallowed the application of income for charitable or religious purpose or for the stated objects of the company/institution. without giving nature of the above disallowance and more so without considering the facts of the case and contents of return filed by the appellant. 3. The registration of the assessee appellant is a registered 'Section 8 Company under the Companies

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

Section 40A(3). (Separate annexure attached of various related parties whom payment given by the asseessee) However, no disallowance was made despite clear legal position. Omission resulted in underassessment of income Rs 66,20,000 involving short levy of tax of Rs.20,45,580. 8 This is brought to the notice of the department for confirmation and necessary action

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-12, PUNE vs. RAJ SURENDRA MOHAN HAJELA, PUNE

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

ITA 470/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

256/- on the ground that the assessee has not filed form No.67 on or before the due date specified for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, as per CBDT’s Notification No.9, dated 19.09.2017, form No.67 shall precede the filing of return of income. Accordingly

TANAJI KEDARI SAPKAL,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD (1), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2478/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2478/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 10Section 154Section 250

2. The grievance of the assessee is that ld.NFAC has confirmed the action of the CPC denying exemption u/s.10(10AA) of the Act at Rs.7,87,092/-received towards Leave Encashment on his retirement. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual who was the employee of the BSNL (a public Sector Undertaking) retired on superannuation