Condonation of Delay denied: communication lapses and corporate restructuring found insufficient; prolonged inaction and lack of bona fides led to ref...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5961 to 5980 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Leave encashment exemption under section 10(10AA)(ii) was held to remain capped at Rs. 3 lakh for the year under consideration, because the enhanced limit notified later operated only prospectively from 01.04.2023. The ITAT accepted that the limit should have been revised earlier, but followed the Kerala High Court in Ramesan P. A. and held that retrospective revision could not be directed since issuance of the notification was a matter of executive policy. The Delhi High Court notice order relied on by the assessee in Kamal Kumar Kalia was not treated as binding. The appeal was dismissed and the section 143(1) adjustment sustained.
Leave encashment exemption under section 10(10AA)(ii) was held to remain capped at Rs. 3 lakh for the year under consideration, because the enhanced limit notified later operated only prospectively from 01.04.2023. The ITAT accepted that the limit should have been revised earlier, but followed the Kerala High Court in Ramesan P. A. and held that retrospective revision could not be directed since issuance of the notification was a matter of executive policy. The Delhi High Court notice order relied on by the assessee in Kamal Kumar Kalia was not treated as binding. The appeal was dismissed and the section 143(1) adjustment sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
