Nine BSNL Employees Win Section 10(10B) Exemption Appeals at ITAT Kolkata

Ajit Kumar Majhi Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

BSNL VRS Compensation: ITAT Allows Nine Appeals, Condones Delay in Exemption Claim

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed nine appeals by former BSNL employees concerning exemption of compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019. Following coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal accepted the exemption claim discussed under Section 10(10B) and condoned delay before the first appellate authority.

Accountant Member Laxmi Prasad Sahu pronounced the common order on 14 October 2026.

The appeals concerned Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22 and involved Ajit Kumar Majhi, Dilip Kumar Naskar, Subhasish Bhattacharya, Jiban Kumar Saha and Sarmistha Dey. The Tribunal treated the issues as common, apart from the amounts involved.

Subhasish Bhattacharya’s Appeal Taken as Lead Case

The Tribunal first considered ITA No. 2848/KOL/2026, filed by Subhasish Bhattacharya for AY 2020-21.

The assessee had worked as a Telecom Office Assistant under the Department of Telecom. Following formation of BSNL, employees initially worked on deemed deputation and were subsequently absorbed under Presidential orders.

The lead assessee filed his return on 17 November 2020, declaring gross total income of ₹22,15,909.

The dispute concerned the tax treatment of compensation received after opting for BSNL’s retirement scheme. The Tribunal applied its reasoning to the connected appeals involving the same issue.

Compensation Received Under BSNL VRS-2019

The order records that the Union Cabinet approved the scheme on 23 October 2019, following which BSNL notified it on 4 November 2019.

The scheme remained open until 3 December 2019 and formed part of the company’s workforce-reduction programme.

Employees opting for retirement received benefits including ex gratia compensation, pension and other retirement payments. The order describes payments being discharged in two phases across Financial Years 2019-20 and 2020-21.

In the lead case, the assessee received ₹14,38,422 as ex gratia during AY 2020-21, with further benefits received in the following year.

The exemption claim arose from the treatment of this compensation.

First Appeal Dismissed After 1,648-Day Delay

CPC processed the lead assessee’s return under Section 143(1) through an intimation dated 28 August 2021, assessing total income at ₹22,15,909.

The assessee filed his first appeal electronically on 2 April 2026, with the order recording a delay of 1,648 days.

The CIT(A) declined to condone the delay, holding that sufficient cause had not been established. Consequently, the exemption issue was not examined on merits.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee sought relief based on favourable decisions concerning the same BSNL scheme. The Revenue defended the limitation dismissal and questioned the adequacy of the explanation and supporting documents.

Tribunal Emphasises Parity with Similarly Placed Retirees

The Tribunal noted that the appeal followed a Chandigarh Bench decision granting relief on similar facts.

It considered that the assessee, being another BSNL employee who had opted for the same retirement scheme, should not be deprived of corresponding treatment merely because the claim was pursued later.

The Bench also noted that the Revenue’s representative had not produced material showing that the cited favourable decision had been challenged before a higher forum.

Considering the condonation application and the comparable decisions, the Tribunal condoned the delay before the CIT(A).

Its reasoning connected the procedural relief with consistent treatment of compensation received under the same scheme.

Ahmedabad Decision Supports Claim Raised in Appeal

The Tribunal extensively reproduced Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria vs. ITO, [2026] 183 taxmann.com 587 (Ahmedabad), ITA Nos. 2387 and 2388/Ahd/2025, dated 17 February 2026.

That case involved a BSNL retiree who had offered compensation to tax without claiming exemption because of lack of awareness.

The quoted decision addressed the objection that the claim did not arise from the Section 143(1) intimation because exemption had not been sought in the return.

It nevertheless allowed relief after considering the exemption claim made before the appellate authority and the earlier Harish Kumar decision.

The Kolkata Bench found that reasoning supportive of the present appeals.

Series of Coordinate Bench Rulings Followed

The Tribunal referred to Harish Kumar vs. ITO, [2025] 175 taxmann.com 379 (Chandigarh) and several decisions concerning other BSNL retirees.

These included rulings from the Ahmedabad, Pune, Mumbai, Bengaluru, Chennai and Panaji Benches.

It considered the present cases similar and followed the established coordinate bench approach. The Section 10(10B) treatment described here is the basis expressly adopted in this order, rather than a separate determination of every category of retirement benefit.

The operative relief concerned the compensation exemption disputes placed before the Tribunal.

All Nine Appeals Allowed

The Tribunal allowed all nine appeals, applying the common reasoning to the connected cases.

Unlike an order merely restoring the matters for another hearing, the decision granted relief by following the cited compensation-exemption rulings.

The outcome also overcame the limitation objection in the lead case. Its significance lies in extending consistent treatment to similarly placed BSNL retirees whose claims concerned the same scheme and comparable facts, notwithstanding their delayed pursuit of the exemption.

Cases Discussed

• Harish Kumar Vs ITO — ITAT Chandigarh; followed — ITAT Chandigarh, [2025] 175 taxmann.com 379 — Recognised the BSNL VRS-2019 compensation exemption; followed as the principal comparable ruling.
• Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria Vs ITO — ITAT Ahmedabad; quoted and followed — ITAT Ahmedabad, [2026] 183 taxmann.com 587 — Allowed exemption claims raised on appeal despite their omission from returns; extensively reproduced and followed.
• Suman Nandlal Raval Vs ITO — ITAT Ahmedabad; cited — ITAT Ahmedabad, ITA Nos. 2389 & 2390/Ahd/2025 — Cited as a comparable BSNL VRS compensation ruling.
• Shraddha Pralhad Arote Vs ITO — ITAT Pune; cited — ITAT Pune, ITA Nos. 262 & 261/PUN/2026 — Cited as a comparable BSNL VRS compensation ruling.
• Meghmala Sudhir Pathak Vs ITO — ITAT Pune; cited — ITAT Pune, ITA Nos. 290 & 293/PUN/2026 — Cited as a comparable BSNL VRS compensation ruling.
• Rajendra Himmatrao Patil Vs ITO — ITAT Pune; cited — ITAT Pune, ITA Nos. 302 & 303/PUN/2026 — Cited as a comparable BSNL VRS compensation ruling.
• Bajirao Shankar Jagdale Vs ITO — ITAT Mumbai; cited — ITAT Mumbai, [2026] 185 taxmann.com 451 — Cited among decisions concerning the same BSNL VRS exemption issue.
• Prathibha Jgadish Unawane Vs ITO — ITAT Pune; cited — ITAT Pune, ITA Nos. 1117 & 1118/PUN/2026 — Cited as a comparable BSNL VRS compensation ruling.
• Sameer Yadram Sharma Vs ITO — ITAT Pune; cited — ITAT Pune, ITA Nos. 864 & 865/PUN/2026 — Cited as a comparable BSNL VRS compensation ruling.
• Renuka Narasimha Prabhu Vs ITO — ITAT Bengaluru; cited — ITAT Bengaluru, ITA No. 992/BANG/2026 — Cited as a comparable BSNL VRS compensation ruling.
• Shri Sekar Gnanaprakasam Vs DCIT — ITAT Chennai; cited — ITAT Chennai, ITA Nos. 1608 & 1609/CHNY/2026 — Cited as a comparable BSNL VRS compensation ruling.
• Shivnandan Narendra Sanvordekar Vs ITO — ITAT Panaji; cited — ITAT Panaji, ITA Nos. 141 & 142/PAN/2026 — Cited as a comparable BSNL VRS compensation ruling.
• Ramesh Bhimshankar Budwatrao Vs ITO — ITAT Pune; cited — ITAT Pune, ITA No. 1890/PUN/2026 — Cited as a comparable BSNL VRS compensation ruling.
• NTPC Ltd. Vs CIT — Supreme Court; cited in quoted Ahmedabad judgment — Supreme Court, (1998) 229 ITR 383 — Quoted Ahmedabad appeal grounds invoked this authority for entertaining fresh legal claims on appeal.
• Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. — Bombay High Court; cited in quoted Ahmedabad judgment — Bombay High Court — Quoted Ahmedabad appeal grounds cited it for the ability to raise claims without a revised return.
• Delhi Development Authority Vs Others — Supreme Court; relied on by Revenue, distinguished — Supreme Court, 2024 INSC 456 — Revenue relied on limitation principles; Kolkata Bench found it inapplicable to parity among BSNL retirees.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA

All these 09 appeals filed by the different assessees against the separate orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] arising out of the separate assessment orders u/s 143(1) and 154 of the Act. On going through the grounds of all the assessees, I noticed that the issues raised by the different assessees are common in nature except the quantum involved in all the appeals and heard together. Therefore, I am passing a common order for all the appeals. For the sake of convenience, I am first taking up appeal bearing ITA No. 2848/KOL/2026 for AY 2020-21 against the order passed by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Patna, dated 05.08.2026, DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1091833156(1) as per the grounds taken by the assessee.

2. Since I am taking up the ITA No. 2848/KOL/2026 first as lead case and the decisions for Assessment Year 2020-21 will apply mutatis mutandis in others appeals except the quantum involved therein.

ITA No. 2848/KOL/2026 (AY 2020-21)

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Telecom Office Assistant under the Department of Telecom (DoT) filed his return of income on 17.11.2020 declaring gross total income of Rs. 22,15,909/- under the guidance of a professional Accountant and claimed benefit under section 10 of the Income Tax Act. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. Upon formation of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited called as BSNL henceforth a PSU effective 1st October, 2000 after carving out some of the functions of Department of Telecom DoT the employees and officers of DOT were faced to work in BSNL on a deemed deputation basis. Thereafter the appellant was absorbed in BSNL as per Presidential Order of DOT dated 28th November, 2005 with retrospective effect from 1st October, 2000. In the meantime, dated 23rd October, 2019 BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), 2019 was approved by the Union Cabinet. Following the Cabinet’s decision, the Scheme was officially notified on 4th November, 2019 and was open for the employees from that date till 3rd December, 2019. BSNL launched this Scheme to right size its workforce by offering a golden handshake package including Pension Ex Gratia and others before their normal superannuation. Ex gratia was given calculating 60 days salary being basic and DA for each completed years of service or remaining months’ salary whichever is less as per DPE guidelines. The appellant availed this Scheme and was compensated accordingly some of the payments in relation to Leave Encashment was from DoT. Like the appellant approximately 80000 or more employees and officers of BSNL were under this mass scale restructuring process of the Company to achieve significant workforce reduction with ongoing process for pay revision and benefit finalizations for the retirees. The entire payment was discharged in two phases one in the financial year 2019-20 and the balance in the financial year 2020-21. The appellant received the compensations in the forms of Ex Gratia amounting to Rs.14,38,422/- in AY 2020-21 and an amount of Rs.131,57,176/- in AY 2021-22 as part of the benefits under the said Scheme. The CPC assessed the total income of the assessee for AY 2020-21 dated 28.08.2021 at Rs.22,15,909/-.

4. Against the intimation order passed by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, (hereinafter ‘Assessing Officer’) u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 28.08.2021 for the AY 2020-21, the assessee instituted the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) electronically on 02.04.2026 vide Form No.35 with a delay of 1648 days. The assessee has explained the reason for delay in filling appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which was beyond the stipulated time limit prescribed u/s 249(2) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and without condoning the delay dismissed the appeal of the assessee and without going into merits of the case as there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal as well as negligent attitude on the part of the appellant by mentioning that this case is not fit for condonation of delay within the specified time limit before him. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ITAT.

5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee mentioning that the appeal is not admitted for adjudication as it is delayed and not filed within the time limit provided and no sufficient cause has been provided by the appellant for the delay. It was also the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the ld. Assessing Officer assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 22,15,909/- and without going into merit of the case dismissed the appeal of the assessee. He, therefore, pleaded before the Bench to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and allow the appeal of assessee.

6. On the other hand, it was the submission of the ld. Departmental Representative that the assessee failed to offer any explanation/supporting documents in respect of the grounds of appeal raised by him before the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A). The assessee also did not file any documentary evidence in support of the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and for this reason, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee for not furnishing satisfactory explanation before him within the stipulated period of time. The CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee has not been able to show any ‘sufficient cause’ for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period, within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act, read with Section 5 of The Limitation Act.

7. The ld. DR has relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and also on the Law of Limitation and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Revenue authorities.

8. Considering the rival submission, I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay observing that there is no reasonable cause provided by the assessee for delay in filling the appeal. Here in the case on hand the assessee filed appeal after the judgement passed by the Co-ordinate bench of the ITAT Chandigarh on the similar set of facts and the co-ordinate Bench has allowed the appeal of the assessee. The case of the assessee is also similar then why the assessee should deprive from not giving benefit of section 10(10B) of the Act. The assessee is also an employee of the BSNL and took VRS and got compensation as per the scheme framed by the BSNL. In the series of the judgements as relied by the ld. Counsel noted (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench has allowed the appeal of the assessee. Considering the condonation application submitted before the ld. CIT(A) noted (supra), I condone the delay before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR could not bring any materials against the above judgement that the Revenue has filed any appeal before the higher forum. The Ld. DR has relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs and others 2024 INSC 456 which is not applicable on the principle of parity of the same organisation. In one side, the Income Tax Department has given benefit on the same set of facts and accepted the judgement of the co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT and on the other side the ld. DR is referring the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court which of the other organization. Although there is no cause of action arose from the order of the CPC-Bengaluru. The Income Tax Act itself has not given right to collect Tax on the compensation amount received, then the Income Tax Department should not collect tax on the exempt income as per section 10(10B) of the Act. The case law relied by the Ld. DR does not support the arguments of the ld. DR. However, the co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Jayeshkumr Tulsidas Sutaria Vs. ITO reported in (2026) 183 taxmann.com 587 (Ahmedabad-Trib) in ITA No. 2387 & 2388/AHD/2025 order dated 17.02.2026 has dealt with the similar issue condoning the delay and accepting the appeal of the assessee, the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and there was no any demand in 143(1) processing. The Co-ordinate Bench has allowed the appeal of the assessee. For the sake of convenience, I am reproducing the entire judgment which is as under:

“The captioned two appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide orders dated 14.10.2025, for the Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are common and identical, we extract the grounds of appeal raised in ITA No.2387/Ahd/2025 for Assessment Year 2020-21 for the purpose of adjudication. The decision rendered in the said appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeal bearing ITA No. 2388/Ahd/2025 for Assessment Year 2021-22.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in holding that the appellant’s grievance does not emanate from the Intimation u/s 143(1) and in directing the appellant to seek condonation and file a revised return, Ignoring the settled legal position that appellate authorities are fully empowered to entertain and adjudicate a new claim even if not made in the return of income. The refusal to consider the exemption u/s 10(108) is contrary to the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1991 taxmann.com 30 (SC)/(1991) 57 ELT 176 (SC)|04-09-1990), NTPC Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd, which categorically hold that filing a revised return is not mandatory for making a new claim. The finding of the CIT(A) is therefore illegal, perverse and liable to be set aside

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal as “not maintainable” on the incorrect assumption that the issue does not arise from the intimation u/s 143(1), without appreciating that the said Intimation has assessed VIRS compensation without granting exemption u/s 10(100). This has resulted in an adverse tax consequence, thereby giving rise to a valid, appealable grievance under section 246A. The conclusion of the CIT(A) is contrary to facts and law.

3. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in refusing to adjudicate the exemption claim u/s 10(108) on merits, thereby violating section 250(6) mandating a reasoned and speaking order on each ground of appeal. The impugned order is nonspeaking, arbitrary, contrary to statutory requirements, and deserves to be quashed.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has committed a serious error in law by directing the appellant to approach the PCIT for condonation and filing of a revised return, thereby unlawfully bypassing and abandoning his own statutory appellate jurisdiction. The powers vested in the CIT(A) under section 251 are wide and Include the authority to entertain and allow a fresh legal claim. in contrast, the PCIT acting under section 119(2)(b) cannot adjudicate or grant exemption u/s 10(108). The impugned direction amounts to abdication of duty, rendering the order bad in law.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant received compensation under the duly approved “BSNL VRS-2019” scheme, which fully satisfies the conditions prescribed under Rule 2BA and is eligible for exemption u/s 10(108). The CIT(A) ignored relevant judicial precedents, including the recent decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh in Harish Kumar vs. ITO (ITA No. 42/CHD/2025, dated 30.05.2025), wherein identical BSNL VRS-2019 benefits were held eligible for exemption. The order is therefore contrary to law and merits reversal.

6. The learned CIT(A) erred in refusing to consider the exemption u/s 10(108) merely because it was not claimed in the return, in complete disregard of CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which obligates tax authorities to grant all lawful reliefs even if not claimed by the assessee. The impugned order is therefore contrary to binding CBDT directions and bad in law.”

3. The assessee was employed with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), a Government of India enterprise. BSNL notified the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) 2019 on 04.11.2019, which was duly approved and implemented by the employer. The assessee opted for the scheme and accordingly received compensation under the VRS, as per the terms laid down by BSNL. It is submitted that the assessee had not been paid regular salary for several months prior to opting for the scheme and was under severe financial and professional uncertainty. In view of these circumstances, the assessee opted for the scheme as a measure of financial security. The compensation received by the assessee was in the nature of compensation under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme. The compensation amount received under the scheme was offered to tax in the return of income due to lack of awareness regarding the exemption available under section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The employer had also deducted tax at source on the said amount. No exemption was claimed in the original or revised return of income. The CPC, Bengaluru issued an intimation under section 143(1) for the said year without granting any exemption, and no rectification or appeal was initiated at that time. It was only upon learning about the recent judgment of the Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO Ward 5(5), Chandigarh (ITA No. 42/CHD/2025, dated 30.05.2025) that the assessee became aware that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under section 10(10B) , subject to compliance with Rule 2BA.

4. Aggrieved by the orders of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows:

“…The Appellant was employed with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), a Government of India enterprise. BSNL had notified the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) 2019 on 04.11.2019, which was duly approved and implemented by the employer. The Appellant opted for this scheme and accordingly received compensation under the VRS, as per the terms laid out by BSNL. The compensation amount received under the scheme was offered to tax by the appellant in the return of income due to lack of awareness about the availability of exemption under Section 10(10B) 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 return for the year by the appellant. The CPC, Bengaluru issued an intimation u/s 143(1) for the said year without granting any exemption, and no rectification or appeal was initiated at that time. The issue on this appeal pertains to exemption u/s 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.

The appellant in his written submission has stated that it was only upon learning about the recent judgment of the Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh, in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO Ward 5(5), Chandigarh (ITA No. 42/CHD/2025, dated 30.05.2025), that the Appellant came to know that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS 2019 scheme is eligible for full exemption u/s. 10(10B), subject to Rule 2BA compliance.

The grievance raised in the grounds of appeal does not emanate from the order appealed against. It is not a case where the appellant claimed exemption u/s.10(10B) and it was denied by the Assessing Officer. The appellant having omitted to claim relief in the return of income can claim the relief by filing the revised return. In cases where the time limit for filing the revised return has expired, the appellant may seek condonation of delay from the jurisdiction PCIT and then proceed with filing the revised return. The issue raised in grounds of appeal does not emanate from the order of intimation u/s.143(1). Hence, the appeal is dismissed…”

5. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us.

6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to lack of awareness of the legal provisions at the time of filing the return of income, the assessee inadvertently offered the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 to tax. Subsequently, based on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in Harish Kumar vs. ITO Ward 5(5), Chandigarh (ITA No. 42/CHD/2025 dated 30.05.2025), wherein compensation under the same BSNL VRS-2019 scheme was held to be exempt under section 10(10B) , the assessee now seeks exemption of such compensation. We find that the assessee filed the claim before the Ld. CIT(A) and since the income of the assessee is not taxable, the assessee is eligible for the refund of the TDS.

7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.”

9. The above judgments relied by the Ld. Counsel supports the case of the assessee on the similar set of facts. I also noted that the Coordinate Bench has decided the similar issue in respect of the following more cases and others which are as under:

1. Harish Kumar V. Income-tax Officer – [2025] 175 taxmann.com 379 (Chandigarh – Trib.);

2. Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria V. Income-tax Officer – [2026] 183 taxmann.com 587 (Ahmedabad – Trib.);

3. Suman Nandlal Raval V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Gandhinagar. [ITA Nos.2389 & 2390/Ahd/2025];

4. Shraddha Pralhad Arote V. Income-tax Officer Ward 2, Ahmednagar – [262 and 261/PUN/2026] 20-21, 21-22;

5. Meghmala Sudhir Pathak V. Income-tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik – [290 and 293/PUN/2026] 20-21, 21-22;

6. Rajendra Himmatrao Patil V. Income-tax Officer Ward 1(4), Jalgaon – [302 and 303/PUN/2026] 20-21, 21-22;

7. Bajirao Shankar Jagdale V. Income-tax Officer -[2026] 185 taxmann.com 451 (Mumbai – Trib.);

8. Prathibha Jgadish Unawane V. ITO, Ward 1 (1), Kolhapur – [1117 and 1118/PUN/2026] 20-21, 21-22;

9. Sameer Yadram Sharma V. Income-tax Officer Ward 1(1), Aurangabad- [864 and 865/PUN/2026] 20-21, 21-22;

10. Renuka Narasimha Prabhu V. ITO Ward 1(1), Karnataka – [ITA 992/BANG/2026] 2020-21;

11. Shri Sekar Gnanaprakasam V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Trichy – [ITA Nos.: 1608 & 1609/CHNY/2026] 2020-21, 21-22;

12. Shivnandan Narendra Sanvordekar V. Income-tax Officer Ward 1(1), Panaji -[141 and 142/PAN/2026] 20-21, 21-22;

13. Ramesh Bhimshankar Budwatrao V. ITO, Ward 2(1), Solapur – [1890/PUN/2026] 21-22

10. Respectfully following the judgments cited (supra), I allow the appeal of the assessee. In the result, all 09 appeals filed by the different assessees are allowed in above terms.

11. A common orderpassed shall be kept in the respective case files.

Order pronounced on 14.10.2026