Which cases are most cited on Section 10(5)?

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (315 ITR 1) — 363 citing judgments; Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT (5 SCC 482) — 261 citing judgments; Rama Bai v. CIT (181 ITR 400) — 258 citing judgments; CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (354 ITR 180) — 208 citing judgments; CIT v. Govindbhai Mamaiya (91 Taxmann.com 20) — 205 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss Section 10(5)?

BharatTax indexes 94 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 10(5) (Section 10(5)).

← All Phrases

“Section 10(5)”

Q: What is the leading case on Section 10(5)?

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (315 ITR 1) is the decision most relied on for Section 10(5), cited in 363 judgments on BharatTax. Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(5)94 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(5) is CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (315 ITR 1), cited in 363 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(5)

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)

315 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court

363

citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.

Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT

5 SCC 482 · 1997 · Supreme Court

261

citing judgments

For income to be assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' as per Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, beneficial ownership or the right to enjoy the property is sufficient; legal ownership is not a mandatory prerequisite.

Rama Bai v. CIT

181 ITR 400 · 1990 · Supreme Court

258

citing judgments

Interest income is taxable on either an accrual or cash basis, determined by accounting principles. This method was applicable prior to legislative changes that simplified the taxation of interest income.

CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd.

354 ITR 180 · 2013 · High Court

208

citing judgments

Annual Letting Value (ALV) of unsold stock-in-trade flats/shops held by a real estate developer can be assessed under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as income from house property. This approach was followed by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on this decision.

CIT v. Govindbhai Mamaiya

91 Taxmann.com 20 · 2018 · Supreme Court

205

citing judgments

Interest on enhanced compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the compensation, not merely interest income, and is exigible to tax on a receipt basis.

CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills

296 ITR 238 · 2008 · High Court

180

citing judgments

A mere audit objection, by itself, is insufficient to infer that an Assessing Officer's order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the purpose of initiating revisional proceedings.

Mahender Pal Narang v. CBDT

161 Taxmann.com 301 · 2024 · High Court

178

citing judgments

Interest received as enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for compulsory acquisition of land is taxable as "income from other sources" under Sections 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and is not exempt under Section 10(37).

247 ITR 305 (Guj) CIT v. Nestle India Ltd.

140 ITR 832 · 1983 · High Court

172

citing judgments

An employer is not in default under section 201 if they have made a bona fide estimate of employee income and deducted tax at source based on that estimate.

Judgments citing Section 10(5)

The Regional Manager State Bank of India, Farrukhabad vs. ITO (TDS), Aligarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/AGR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 May 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 192Section 201

State Bank of India which had provided Leave Fare Concession (LFC) to its employees and had treated the same as exempt under section 10(5) of the Income-tax Act ("the Act") while computing TDS under section 192 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer ... under section 201(1A) of the Act. 4. In response, the assessee submitted that the LFC benefit was granted Strictly in accordance with section 10(5) of the Act read with Rule 2B, as the designated place of travel was within India and the reimbursement was restricted to the fare

State Bank of India Bhavnagar Para Branch, Bhavnagar vs. ITO TDS Ward 1, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 454/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Nair, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR

Section 192Section 201(1)

State Bank of India which had provided Leave Fare Concession (LFC) to its employees and had treated the same as exempt under section 10(5) of the Income-tax Act ("the Act") while computing TDS under section 192 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer ... under section 201(1A) of the Act. 4. In response, the assessee submitted that the LFC benefit was granted strictly in accordance with section 10(5) of the Act read with Rule 2B, as the designated place of travel was within India and the reimbursement was restricted to the fare

State Bank of India Bhavnagar Para Branch, Bhavnagar vs. ITO TDS Ward 1, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 453/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Nair, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR

Section 192Section 201(1)

State Bank of India which had provided Leave Fare Concession (LFC) to its employees and had treated the same as exempt under section 10(5) of the Income-tax Act ("the Act") while computing TDS under section 192 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer ... under section 201(1A) of the Act. 4. In response, the assessee submitted that the LFC benefit was granted strictly in accordance with section 10(5) of the Act read with Rule 2B, as the designated place of travel was within India and the reimbursement was restricted to the fare

State Bank of India Local Head Office Chandigarh, Chandigarh vs. Addl Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS) Chandigarh, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 991/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 10(5)Section 133(6)Section 192Section 271C

foreign travel and no tax was deducted at source on such payments. 3.1 The Assessing Officer was of the view that exemption under section 10(5) of the Act is available only in respect of travel to any place in India and not for foreign travel. Accordingly, the assessee ... deduct tax at source on LTC/LFC payments made to employees who had undertaken foreign travel. According to the AO, the provisions of section 10(5) of the Act clearly restrict exemption to travel within India and therefore the entire reimbursement constituted taxable salary. The AO observed that the obligation

Dnyaneshwar Shinde, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1726/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist

Section 10Section 147

Amount (Rs.) 1 Section 10(10AA) 22,368 2 Section 10(10) 58,787 3 Section 10(10B) 52,052 4 Any other (Section 10(5)) 11,278 5 Compensation received claimed for Relief u/s 89 13,81,045 3.1 According to the Ld. AO an amount aggregating to Rs.15

State Bank of India Nalikul Branch, Nalikul vs. Income Tax TDS Ward 2(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2691/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR

Section 10(5)Section 156Section 201Section 201(1)

belief that no TDS was applicable on the reimbursement of the LFC paid to its employees involving enroute foreign travel in lieu of section 10(5) and hence, the Appellant ought not be regarded as an assessee in default. 3 7.Without prejudice to the above, the learned TDS officer

Ramkrishna Bajaj Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 26(1), Mumbai

ITA 6544/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Adv. & MrFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 35ASection 80

held in para 9 as under “So far as question No.4 of paragraph No. 3 with regard to agricultural income is concerned, section 10(5) of the Act specifically points out that agricultural income shall not be included in computing the total income of a previous year and hence ... Court has held that the agricultural income shall not be included in the computation of total income of previous year in view of section 10(5) of the Act. Therefore, this income is not required to be considered for the purpose of section 11 of the Act. In the case

ACIT, Jhandewalan vs. M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S Magnet Labs Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of assesse is allowed and of revenue dismissed

ITA 5141/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd. (Earlier Circle-16(1), Known As M/S Magnet Labs Pvt. Delhi. Ltd.), 208, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-3, Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaccm1861C Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As M/S Magnet Circle-16(1), Labs Pvt. Ltd.), Delhi 208, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-3, Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaccm1861C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate & Shri Rahul Prabhakar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

concession/conveyance allowance. The relevant extract of the decision is reproduced as under: “2. It may be noted that the beneficiary of exemption under section 10(5) is an individual employee. There is no circular of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) requiring the employer under section 192 to collect ... examine the supporting evidence to the declaration to be submitted by an employee(s). "Though the decision is in relation with exemption under section 10(5) of the act, however the ratio of same in somewhat limited perspective cannot be overlooked in present case. ……………………………. 8.9 In the case of Hero

Mankind Pharma Limited (As Successor of Magnet Labs Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 16(1) Delhi, Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of assesse is allowed and of revenue dismissed

ITA 4654/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

State Bank of India, Smecc, Zonal Office, Kanpur vs. ACIT9TDS), Kanpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 636/LKW/2024[1018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Jul 2025AY 1018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 State Bank Of India V. Dcit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan:Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 State Bank Of India V. Addl. Cit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan: Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 07 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 10(5)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 271C

undertaken by the employee. (4) That the Learned Additional CIT(A), NFAC, has erred in not appreciating that the benefit of exemption under section 10(5) of the income Tay. Act 1961 is available to the appellant's employee’s designated place is in India and he actually visits ... place as designated. (5) That the Learned Additional CIT(A), NFAC, has erred in not appreciating that the appellant provided exemption under section 10(5) of IT Act 1961 only when the employee’s designated place is in India and he actually visits the place as designated. Further, even

State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kanpur vs. Dy. CIT (TDS), Kanpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 635/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 10(5)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 271C

State Bank of India, Chennai vs. ACIT TDS, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1465/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1465/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 State Bank Of India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Industrial Finance Branch, Income Tax, 103, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002. Tds Circle 3(1), [Tan:Ches02510E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Madan Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.03.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(1)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Raised 17 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Passed Under Section 201/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate (virtual)For Respondent: Shri N. Madan Kumar, JCIT

Section 10(5)Section 192BSection 201

claimed LFC (leave fare concession) amounting to ₹.1,85,452/- involving travel places outside India. The Assessing Officer observed that the exemption under section 10(5) of the Act is not available as the place of travelling of the said employee is not situated in India. The Assessing Officer further ... employees containing the entire details of journey undertaken and the related expenses are not hit by the provisions of 5 I.T.A. No.1465/Chny/24 section 10(5) of the Act. Further, she argued that the ld. CIT(A) is misplaced in relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Sbi AO West Mumbai Branch, Santacruz(W) vs. The Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, TDS-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2887/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2887/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui

Section 10(5)Section 192Section 201Section 250

route foreign travel being undertaken by the employee. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the benefit of exemption under section 10(5) is available to the appellant's employees' even in cases where the journey undertaken by an employee involves a foreign leg, as employee ... interpreted so as to advance the purpose behind it. 11. The learned CIT(A) thus erred in not appreciating that incentive provision like section 10(5) should be construed in a liberal and purposive manner, meaning thereby that the Assessing Officer, in such cases, should adopt a liberal and broad

State Bank of India Linking Road, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax-TDS2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2886/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2887/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2016-17) State Bank Of India Administrative Officer West Mumbai Branch B Wing, Lic Complex, 1St Floor, Jeevan Seva Annex Building, S. V. Road, Santracruz (W.), Mumbai- 400054 V/S. बनाम Acit-Tds 2(2), Mumbai 3Rd Floor Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacs8577K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2886/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2016-17) State Bank Of India, Linking Road Branch, Plot No. 533, Patwardhan House, Bandra West, Mumbai-400052 V/S. बनाम Acit-Tds 2(2), Mumbai 3Rd Floor Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacs8577K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri Ninad Patade राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui

Section 10(5)Section 192Section 201Section 250

State Bank of India (Earlier Known As Sbbj), Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS), Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 173/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mrs. Apeksha Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 142Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)Section 292BSection 5

case of the assess bank. Thereafter, the AO discussing the legal position of Rule 2B of the Income Tax Rules and Section 10(5) of the IT Act, 1961, treated the assessee bank to be an assessee in default within the meaning of section

Stete Bank of India, Smeccc Code-5030, Kanpur vs. ITO (TDS)-, Kanpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 391/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 10(5)Section 201

travel being undertaken by the employee. 3. That the Learned CIT (A) erred in failing to appreciate that the benefit of exemption under section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is available to the appellant's employees even in cases where the journey undertaken by an employee involves ... Financial Year- 2012-13. 5. That the Learned CIT (A) erred in failing to appreciate that the appellant provided exemption under section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 only when the employee's designated place is in India and he actually visits the place as designated. Further, even

State Bank of India, Smeccc-Code-5030, Kanpur vs. ITO(TDS)-2, Kanpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 390/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 10(5)Section 201

Branch Manager State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Administretive Office, Kanpur vs. ACIT (TDS), Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 491/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

erred in confirming penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s 271C of the Act 1961, disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5) of the Act, without appreciating that no tax was deductible on the provisions created by the Appellant. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... erred in confirming penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s 271C of the Act, disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5) of IT Act 1961, without appreciating that there was 'reasonable cause' for the said failure as per the provisions of Section 273B of the Act 1961. 5. That

Branch Manager State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Administretive Office, Kanpur vs. ACIT (TDS), Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 490/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

Branch Manager State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Administretive Office, Kanpur vs. ACIT (TDS), Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 489/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B