← All Phrases

“Section 10(33)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(33)168 judgments

CITY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED (ERSTWHILE CITY HOLDINGS LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2683/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 10(33)Section 14ASection 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant

ACIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. RAMAKANT, DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4621/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriacit, Circle 3(1)(1), Vs Ramakant International Ac-1/181 B, Shalimar Taxation, Bagh, Delhi – 100 88 New Delhi – 110 002 (Pan: Aaahr2466R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(33)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69

relied on credible information from the Directorate of Income Tax (DIT) Investigation? 3. Whether the CIT(A) misinterpreted the scope and application of Section 10(33) of the Act, particularly with respect to the burden of proof for claiming exemptions on LTCG. 4. Whether he CIT(A) was justified

ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1839/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. The learned ASG also invited our attention to provision of section 10(33) to show that the income arising from the transfer of a capital asset could not be reckoned as an income which can form

TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1838/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. The learned ASG also invited our attention to provision of section 10(33) to show that the income arising from the transfer of a capital asset could not be reckoned as an income which can form

AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1837/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. The learned ASG also invited our attention to provision of section 10(33) to show that the income arising from the transfer of a capital asset could not be reckoned as an income which can form

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

JAGDISH MALHOTRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), JHANDEWALAN

ITA 4546/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: \nSh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: \nSh. Shrikant Namdeo, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

{ "clean_text": "Page 1\nITA No. 4546/Del/2025\nS.A. No.429/Del/2025\nJagdish Malhotra (AY: 2012-13)\nTHE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4413/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

Assessing Officer noted that a sum of Rs. 25,96,287/- received on account of dividend income is claimed as exempt under section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act. However, this income forms a part of the income from trust property and, therefore, can only be claimed ... exempt under section 11 of the Income Tax Act if applied for charity and not under section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act. Claim of exemption under section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act is, therefore, not allowable. Similar is the position with regard to the sum received

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 2(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4055/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

Assessing Officer noted that a sum of Rs. 25,96,287/- received on account of dividend income is claimed as exempt under section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act. However, this income forms a part of the income from trust property and, therefore, can only be claimed ... exempt under section 11 of the Income Tax Act if applied for charity and not under section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act. Claim of exemption under section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act is, therefore, not allowable. Similar is the position with regard to the sum received

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN BANDRA MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4030/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

Assessing Officer noted that a sum of Rs. 25,96,287/- received on account of dividend income is claimed as exempt under section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act. However, this income forms a part of the income from trust property and, therefore, can only be claimed ... exempt under section 11 of the Income Tax Act if applied for charity and not under section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act. Claim of exemption under section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act is, therefore, not allowable. Similar is the position with regard to the sum received

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. SANJULA SUMATI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3002/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

that it is now clear that the fact that the dividend received by the assessee was tax free is the position recognized under section 10(33) of the Income-tax Act. It appears that the assessee has utilized the said provision of the statute and as such, the same cannot ... assessee. That, the assessee did receive dividend. The fact that the dividend received was tax-free is the position recognized under Section 10(33) of the Act. The assessee had made use of the said provision of the Act. That such use cannot be called "abuse of law". Even assuming

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. SANJULA SUMATI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3001/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

that it is now clear that the fact that the dividend received by the assessee was tax free is the position recognized under section 10(33) of the Income-tax Act. It appears that the assessee has utilized the said provision of the statute and as such, the same cannot ... assessee. That, the assessee did receive dividend. The fact that the dividend received was tax-free is the position recognized under Section 10(33) of the Act. The assessee had made use of the said provision of the Act. That such use cannot be called "abuse of law". Even assuming

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. LALITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3000/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

that it is now clear that the fact that the dividend received by the assessee was tax free is the position recognized under section 10(33) of the Income-tax Act. It appears that the assessee has utilized the said provision of the statute and as such, the same cannot ... assessee. That, the assessee did receive dividend. The fact that the dividend received was tax-free is the position recognized under Section 10(33) of the Act. The assessee had made use of the said provision of the Act. That such use cannot be called "abuse of law". Even assuming

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. KANTA GANPATLAL KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands\ndismissed

ITA 2999/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20
Section 10(35)Section 133A

assessee. That, the assessee did\nreceive dividend. The fact that the dividend received was tax-free\nis the position recognized under Section 10(33) of the Act. The\nassessee had made use of the said provision of the Act. That\nsuch use cannot be called "abuse of law". Even assuming

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. KANTA GANPATLAL KOTHARI , MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2998/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

that it is now clear that the fact that the dividend received by the assessee was tax free is the position recognized under section 10(33) of the Income-tax Act. It appears that the assessee has utilized the said provision of the statute and as such, the same cannot ... assessee. That, the assessee did receive dividend. The fact that the dividend received was tax-free is the position recognized under Section 10(33) of the Act. The assessee had made use of the said provision of the Act. That such use cannot be called "abuse of law". Even assuming

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ANITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2996/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

that it is now clear that the fact that the dividend received by the assessee was tax free is the position recognized under section 10(33) of the Income-tax Act. It appears that the assessee has utilized the said provision of the statute and as such, the same cannot ... assessee. That, the assessee did receive dividend. The fact that the dividend received was tax-free is the position recognized under Section 10(33) of the Act. The assessee had made use of the said provision of the Act. That such use cannot be called "abuse of law". Even assuming

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. LALITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2990/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

that it is now clear that the fact that the dividend received by the assessee was tax free is the position recognized under section 10(33) of the Income-tax Act. It appears that the assessee has utilized the said provision of the statute and as such, the same cannot ... assessee. That, the assessee did receive dividend. The fact that the dividend received was tax-free is the position recognized under Section 10(33) of the Act. The assessee had made use of the said provision of the Act. That such use cannot be called "abuse of law". Even assuming

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ANITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2988/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

that it is now clear that the fact that the dividend received by the assessee was tax free is the position recognized under section 10(33) of the Income-tax Act. It appears that the assessee has utilized the said provision of the statute and as such, the same cannot ... assessee. That, the assessee did receive dividend. The fact that the dividend received was tax-free is the position recognized under Section 10(33) of the Act. The assessee had made use of the said provision of the Act. That such use cannot be called "abuse of law". Even assuming

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. 2015 GROVER FAMILY TRUST, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5108/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 94(7)(E)

that it is now clear that the fact that the dividend received by the assessee was tax free is the position recognized under section 10(33) of the Income-tax Act. It appears that the assessee has utilized the sald provision of the statute and as such, the same cannot

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. CMS COMPUTERS LIMITED , MUMBAI

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

ITA 5105/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 94(7)(E)

that it is now clear that the fact that the dividend received by the assessee was tax free is the position recognized under section 10(33) of the Income-tax Act. It appears that the assessee has utilized the sald provision of the statute and as such, the same cannot

Showing 1–20 of 168 · Page 1 of 9

...