← All Phrases

“Section 10(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(1)218 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(1) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(1)

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.
332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court
897
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.
82 Taxmann.com 415 · 2017 · High Court
789
citing judgments

Disallowance computed under Section 14A, read with Rule 8D, cannot be added to book profits under Section 115JB for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes. Additionally, for Section 14A disallowance, only investments that yielded exempt income during the year are considered for calculating their average value.

CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.
326 ITR 1 · 2010 · Supreme Court
543
citing judgments

For attracting Section 14A disallowance, there must be a proximate cause relating the expenditure to actual tax-exempt income, and such disallowance is not automatic but requires positive material. Additionally, Section 94(7) on dividend stripping only ignores losses to the extent of dividend received for assessment years post-April 1, 2002, allowing the remaining loss.

CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
43 Taxmann.com 411 · 2014 · High Court
524
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund, ESI, and other welfare funds, if deposited by the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as a deduction and cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) or Section 43B, even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective welfare Acts.

CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd.
323 ITR 518 · 2010 · High Court
470
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A, for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income, is not permissible when the assessee has not earned any exempt income, such as dividend income under Section 10(34), during the year under consideration.

PCIT v. Swati Bajaj
139 Taxmann.com 352 · 2022 · High Court
443
citing judgments

Tax authorities are entitled to examine surrounding circumstances and apply the test of human probabilities to determine the genuineness of long-term capital gains arising from the sale of manipulated penny stock, even if prima facie documents appear to support the transaction.

Judgments citing Section 10(1)

Brijesh Kumar Goswami, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(2), Delhi

In the result, the instant assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2415/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Brijesh Kumar Goswami, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-305, Majlis Park, Adarsh Ward 36(2), New Dehi Nagar, New Dehi – 110 033 (Pan: Adapg2435L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.02.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Being Individual, Not Having Filed His Income Tax Return For The Ay 2012-13, Simply For The Reason That The Total Income For The Year Was Less Than The Threshold Limit Of Assessment. In The Meanwhile, In Compliance To Notice U/S. 148 Dated 30.3.2019 The Assessee Furnished His Return Of Income, Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs. 13,521/- & Claimed Refund Of Rs. 2,230/-. Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 8,60,180/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 13,520/- & Made The Addition Of Rs. 1,09,640/- On Account Of Share Trading Transactions With Mcx & Rs. 71,316/- On Account Of Share Trading With Bse & A Sum Of Rs. 87,584/- As Adhoc Disallowance Of Expenditure Claimed. Besides This, He Has Also Denied The Exemption On Account Of Agricultural Income, Thereby Making

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(1)Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148

suspicion that there was nothing on record to discredit the assessee in claiming income of Rs. 5,78,120/- as exempt under section 10(1) of the Act. AO noted that assessee has not done agriculture activities and income shown by him is the money of assessee itself earned

Ganendra Nath Halder, Little Andaman vs. ACIT Circle 3(2), Port Blair

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1620/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1620/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ganendra Nath Halder, Little Andaman………………....Appellant Vivekanandapur Post, Little Andaman Union Territory Of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Andaman & Nicobar Islands-744207. [Pan: Amnph7301J] Vs. Acit Circle-3(2), Port Blair…………………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 29, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.06.2024 Passed By The Cit, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Pune [In Short Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee A Resident Of Little Andaman, Is A Super Senior Citizen Aged 82 Years During The Relevant Assessment Year. He Did Not File A Return Of Income Under Section 139 For A.Y. 2017–18. Based On The Information Available In The Departmental Database & Its Data, It Was Observed That Cash Deposits Of ₹10,00,000 Were Made In The Assessee’S Bank Account—₹5,00,000 Each On 10.11.2016 & 11.11.2016 Respectively. Accordingly Notice Under Section 142(1) Was Issued On 13.03.2018 Through Speed Post, But The Assessee Failed To Respond Or File The Return. Subsequently, The

Section 10(1)Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69

viewed as abnormal or I.T.A. No.1620/Kol/2024 Ganendra Nath Halder, Little Andaman non-genuine transactions. He further, argued that agricultural income is exempt under Section 10(1)of the Act. Besides that the assessee being a super senior citizen is entitled to a basic exemption up to ₹5,00,000. Even