<?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>2026 (2) TMI 1437 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469666</link>
    <description>Rule 37A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 treats employees absorbed from the Central Government into BSNL as having retired from Government service for pensionary purposes, and that special framework prevails over general executive instructions. On that basis, leave encashment paid on retirement is to be considered under the Central Government exemption in Section 10(10AA)(i) of the Income-tax Act, rather than the general residuary treatment in Section 10(10AA)(ii). The result is that tax deduction at source under Section 192 on the footing of clause (ii) is not justified where the absorbee is covered by the deemed-retirement scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 22:22:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=908883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 1437 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469666</link>
      <description>Rule 37A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 treats employees absorbed from the Central Government into BSNL as having retired from Government service for pensionary purposes, and that special framework prevails over general executive instructions. On that basis, leave encashment paid on retirement is to be considered under the Central Government exemption in Section 10(10AA)(i) of the Income-tax Act, rather than the general residuary treatment in Section 10(10AA)(ii). The result is that tax deduction at source under Section 192 on the footing of clause (ii) is not justified where the absorbee is covered by the deemed-retirement scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469666</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>