← 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)

Ms. Uma Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3818/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Uma Gupta, Vs. Acit, Aerens Bimaldeep Complex, Central Circle-9, Behind Pocket-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aahpg0455E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajeshwar Painuly, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 23Rd March, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-25, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That A Search & Seizure & Survey Operation U/S 132/133A Of The It Act, 1961 Were Conducted On 17Th August, 2011 In The Case Of The Assessee Along With Other Cases Of The Group At Various Residential & Business Premises. In Response To Notice U/S 153A, The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income Declaring Income From House Property At Rs.1,26,000/-, Income From Bank Interest At Rs.241/- & Income From Dividend At Rs.53,050/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Observed That The Assessee Has Declared Capital Loss On Sale Of Property At Rs.32,536/- Giving Note That The Indexed Cost Of The Property Is More By An Amount Of Rs.32,536/- Than The Sale Consideration Of The Land. However, In The Balance Sheet, The Assessee Has Credited A Sum Of Rs.80,032.67 As Profit On Sale Of Land. In Absence Of Any Proper Explanation From The Side Of The Assessee, The Ao Treated The Long-Term Capital Gain At Rs.80,032.67 & Determined The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.1,71,997/-, After Allowing Deduction U/S 80C At Rs.34,276/- & Allowing The Exemption U/S 10(34) Of The Act On Dividend Income At Rs.53,050/-.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 132Section 153ASection 234BSection 48Section 80C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU

DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 09

ITA 5834/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaact0627R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Ca & Shri Pulkit Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri H.K. Chaudhary, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th June, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-22, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.25,85,81,755/- Made By The Ao U/S 14A Of The I.T. Act.” 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Public Sector Undertaking Of Government Of India & Is In The Business Of Non-Life Insurance. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Under Normal Provisions Of The Income-Tax Act At A Loss Of Rs.186,97,30,289/- & Book Profit U/S 115Jb I.E., Mat Scheme Of Rs.565,63,58,876/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Claimed The Following Income As Exempt:- S. No. Particulars Amount ( □) 1. Interest On Tax Free Public Sector Bonds Exempt Under 4,59,58,525/- Section 10 (15) (Iv) (H) Of The Act 2,04,22,38,227/- 2. Dividend Exempt U/S 10(34) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Total 2,08,81,96,752/-

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CA &For Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT, DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14ASection 44

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY