<?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>Employee&#039;s Leave Salary Exemption Claim Under Section 10(10AA) After PSU Absorption Found Valid, Penalty Under 270A Quashed</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85578</link>
    <description>AO&#039;s penalty order under s270A regarding leave salary exemption claimed on voluntary retirement under s10(10AA) was set aside by ITAT. The appellant, permanently absorbed in MTNL from government service, claimed full exemption in revised ITR based on genuine belief. ITAT held that penalty imposition is discretionary due to word &quot;may&quot; in s270A(1), not mandatory &quot;shall&quot;. The bona fide belief clause in s270A(6)(a) supports discretionary interpretation. The claim&#039;s debatable nature was evident from SC judgments on employee rights in PSUs versus government service. The tribunal found appellant&#039;s explanation legitimate, noting full disclosure of service details and circumstances leading to exemption claim. Penalty order quashed considering genuine mistake and absence of deliberate misreporting.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 08 Feb 2025 09:12:10 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Feb 2025 09:12:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=796253" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Employee&#039;s Leave Salary Exemption Claim Under Section 10(10AA) After PSU Absorption Found Valid, Penalty Under 270A Quashed</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85578</link>
      <description>AO&#039;s penalty order under s270A regarding leave salary exemption claimed on voluntary retirement under s10(10AA) was set aside by ITAT. The appellant, permanently absorbed in MTNL from government service, claimed full exemption in revised ITR based on genuine belief. ITAT held that penalty imposition is discretionary due to word &quot;may&quot; in s270A(1), not mandatory &quot;shall&quot;. The bona fide belief clause in s270A(6)(a) supports discretionary interpretation. The claim&#039;s debatable nature was evident from SC judgments on employee rights in PSUs versus government service. The tribunal found appellant&#039;s explanation legitimate, noting full disclosure of service details and circumstances leading to exemption claim. Penalty order quashed considering genuine mistake and absence of deliberate misreporting.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 08 Feb 2025 09:12:10 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85578</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>