Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.19

Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 19 (Deductions from salaries) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 19 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 10(10B) is CIT v. Ajit Kumar Bose (165 ITR 90), cited in 7 of the 1,303 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 10(10B)

CIT v. Ajit Kumar Bose
165 ITR 90 · 1987 · High Court
7
citing judgments
CIT v. Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre (CITU) vs. Government of India
151 DTR 185 · 2017 · Reported
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 10(10B)

Jayendra Bipinchandra Patel, Gandhinagar vs. Itoward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 189/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Parin S Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 249(3)

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

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

Narendra Kumar Mishra, Bhopal vs. ITO-3(1), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 233/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

For Appellant: Narendra Kumar Mishra, Bhopal
Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

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

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

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

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

Albert Gnana Selvam Daniel, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer Non Corp Ward 1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2393/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Guru Prasad, Addl. C.I.T
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 17(3)Section 56(2)(xi)

Dnyaneshwar Shinde, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1726/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist
Section 10Section 147

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)

Sunil Kumar Sinha, Lucknow vs. ITO-1(4), Lucknow -New, Lucknow

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

ITA 274/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Kumar Sinha V. The Ito-1(4) A-23, Vishnupuri Colony Lucknow - New Nahar Road, Near Shukla Chauraha Jankipuram, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Adpps6761A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Neelam Diman, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Diman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 143(1)

Bijender Singh Dhankhar, Pinjore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Panchkula

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 222/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 89(1)

The Mandi Urban Coop. Bank Ltd., Mandi vs. ITO, Ward, Mandi

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 627/CHANDI/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 89(1)

The Mandi Urban Coop. Bank Ltd., Mandi vs. DCIT, Circle, Mandi

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 626/CHANDI/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 89(1)

The Mandi Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Mandi vs. ACIT, Circle, Mandi

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1613/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 89(1)

Harish Kumar, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(5) Chandigarh, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 42/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.42/Chd/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 बनाम Harish Kumar The Ito, 2439 Sector 50C, Ward 5(5) Chndigarh.160047 Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Advpk1006A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physicalhearing ) िनधा""रतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Jain, C.A. राज"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl.Cit.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-05-2025 उदघोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30-05-2025 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20-12-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi[Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Effective Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT.Sr.Dr
Section 10

Gyanesh Chandra Srivastava, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1516/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Kuldeep Singh, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(5), Chnadigarh

The appeal stand dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1051/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 1051/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Kuldeep Singh Ito Ward No 5(5) बनाम/ H.No 34-D Sector 30B Aaykar Bhawan Sector 178 Vs. Chandigarh 160030 Chandigarh 160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afdps-0430-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. This Appeal Was Heard On 23-04-2025 On The Issue Of Deduction U/S 10(10B) As Claimed By The Assessee For Rs.28.23 Lacs Which Was Restricted To Rs.5 Lacs By Lower Authorities. The Impugned Amount Was Received By The Assessee Upon Transfer From Dot, Govt. Of India To Bsnl With Effect From 01-01-2000. The Assessee Claimed That It Was Retrenchment Compensation But Ld. Cit(A) Held That It Was Case Of Voluntary Retirement. 2. The Ld. Ar, Subsequently, Placed On Record Rectification Order Passed By Nfac U/S 154 R.W.S. 250 Of The Act On 12-11-2024 Wherein

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 154

Anju Bala L/H Om Parkash, Pinjore vs. ITO- Ward-3, Panchkula

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 249/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 249/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Anju Bala बनाम The Ito, Legal Heir Of Shri Om Parkash Ward-3, C/O Dhiman Bansal & Panchkula Associates, 68, Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore 134102 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aavpp0395C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By :Dr. Danish Abdullah, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Danish Abdullah, JCIT
Section 10Section 10(10)Section 89(1)