← All Phrases

“Section 10(34)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(34)677 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(34) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(34)

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.

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. 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.

HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT
383 ITR 529 · 2016 · High Court
408
citing judgments

Where an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, investments yielding exempt income are presumed to be made out of such funds, precluding disallowance of related interest expenditure under section 14A.

Vijaya Bank v. CIT
323 ITR 166 · 2010 · Supreme Court
392
citing judgments

A provision for bad and doubtful debts debited to the profit and loss account and reduced from advances on the balance sheet constitutes a write-off for deduction purposes. This is true even if individual debtor accounts are not closed.

Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT
320 ITR 577 · 2010 · Supreme Court
353
citing judgments

The case concerns the allowability of deductions for provisions made under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially those related to bad and doubtful debts. It distinguishes such deductions from the recognition of interest income on non-performing assets (NPAs).

United Commercial Bank v. CIT
240 ITR 355 · 1999 · Supreme Court
314
citing judgments

Liabilities accrued on a notional basis are allowable as deductions under the mercantile system of accounting even if their exact quantification or discharge is deferred to a future date or if the demand itself is disputed.

Judgments citing Section 10(34)

Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4151/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.4151/मुं/2018(िन.व. 2014-15) M/S Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. 253, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan: Aaacr1772R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit-5(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Ronak Doshi With Ms. Ayushi "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Pankaj Kumar & Sh. Pavan Kumar Beerla सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.03.2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Solitary Issue Assailing The Findings Of Cit(A) In Confirming Disallowance Under Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Sh. Ronak Doshi with Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Sh. Pankaj Kumar and Sh. Pavan Kumar Beerla
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

submitted that during the period relevant to the AY under appeal, the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 12.40 crores exempt under section 10(34) of the Act. The assessee made suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 19,71,090/- for earning of exempt dividend income. During the assessment proceedings