The dispute concerned restriction of leave encashment exemption to ₹3 lakh. The Tribunal allowed the full claim after applying the revised exemption limit of ₹25 lakh.
The ITAT held that leave encashment of ₹17.68 lakh qualified for exemption under Section 10(10AA) since it was within the revised ₹25 lakh ceiling. The appeal was allowed on the basis of the enhanced exemption limit.
The dispute concerned partial denial of leave encashment exemption under Section 10(10AA). The Tribunal granted relief after finding that the amount claimed fell within the revised exemption limit.
The assessee challenged the reduction of leave encashment exemption through a rectification order. The ITAT ruled that the absence of an opportunity of hearing necessitated fresh proceedings.
The ITAT allowed full exemption of leave encashment received on retirement after noting that the CBDT had increased the exemption ceiling to ₹25 lakh. The key takeaway is that claims within the revised limit are eligible for exemption.
Allahabad High Court set aside a GST refund rejection after the taxpayer was unable to upload an additional reply on the GST portal. The Court held that the portal must support supplementary replies to ensure proper adjudication and fair hearing.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to entertain the writ petition after finding that the appeal was filed beyond limitation and without the required pre-deposit. The Court held that statutory remedies cannot be bypassed through writ jurisdiction.
The Calcutta High Court declined interim relief against a Section 74 GST notice involving classification of extrusion fried snacks and pellet fried snacks. The Court held that the challenge to the CBIC circular and classification issues required extensive hearing.
The ITAT Delhi held that the Assessing Officer travelled beyond the limited scrutiny mandate by examining a loan transaction unrelated to the selected issue of increase in capital. Since no approval for expanding scrutiny scope was obtained, the assessment was quashed.
The ITAT Bangalore held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) could not survive once the recipient of the income settled the tax dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The ruling relied on CBDT Circular No.19/2024 and FAQ No.58 granting consequential relief to the deductor.
