<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (9) TMI 2152 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459039</link>
    <description>Differential exemption treatment for leave encashment under section 10(10AA) was examined for Government employees and bank employees. The exemption framework operated in different factual settings, and employees under different employers and service conditions could not claim parity merely because the benefit related to retirement. On the material available, no hostile discrimination was established, and the classification was upheld as valid. The challenge to the ceiling applicable to the petitioner therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2024 08:58:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=779289" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 2152 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459039</link>
      <description>Differential exemption treatment for leave encashment under section 10(10AA) was examined for Government employees and bank employees. The exemption framework operated in different factual settings, and employees under different employers and service conditions could not claim parity merely because the benefit related to retirement. On the material available, no hostile discrimination was established, and the classification was upheld as valid. The challenge to the ceiling applicable to the petitioner therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>