Case Law Details
Case Name : Gyanendra Panwar Vs ADIT (ITAT Delhi): I.T.A No.238/DDN/2025
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Delhi
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Gyanendra Panwar Vs ADIT (ITAT Delhi)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee’s appeal and directed grant of full exemption on leave encashment under Section 10(10AA). The assessee, a retired employee of Bank of Baroda, received ₹9,26,904 as leave encashment. While processing the return under Section 143(1), CPC restricted the exemption to ₹3,00,000, applying the old monetary ceiling applicable to non-government employees. The Tribunal noted that Notification No. 31/2023 dated 24.05.2023 enhanced the exemption limit to ₹25,00,000 with effect from 01.04.2023 and cl...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Author Bio
Dear Mr Ajay agarwal in case no appeal is pending for A Y 2017-18 to 2019-20 bank employee cases .
The employee claimed Rs 3 lac as per Form 16
Cases are completed by granting exemption of 3 lac as per prevailing circular at that time
How to claim the benefit of circular in such cases
the decision of ITAT, Dehradun no. 238/DDN/2025 dtd. 11.02.2026 in detail. please mai it to my email as above.
The constitutional validity of the distinction between Government and non-Government employees under Section 10(10AA) has been examined by the High Courts. In Purnendu Shekhar Sinha Versus The Union Of India (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12326 of 2017, decided on 26.02.2024), the Patna High Court held that differentiation between Central/State Government employees and other employees for the purpose of leave encashment exemption is a reasonable classification and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court observed that the legislature has wide discretion in matters of taxation and classification.
CORRIGENDUM
Subject: Correction in Tribunal Bench – Gyanendra Panwar vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax
It is hereby clarified that in the case titled:
Gyanendra Panwar Versus Assistant Director of Income Tax
ITA No. 238/DDN/2025
Order dated 11 February 2026
Assessment Year: 2017–18
The Bench of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was incorrectly mentioned as “ITAT Delhi Bench.”
The correct Bench is:
ITAT Dehradun Bench
Accordingly, the correct case citation should read as follows:
Gyanendra Panwar Vs. ADIT (ITAT Dehradun)
ITA No. 238/DDN/2025 – Order dated 11 February 2026
Assessment Year: 2017–18
The error is regretted.
kindly give the ITA no