← All Phrases

“Section 10(33)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 10(33) is CIT v. DLF Commercial Developers Ltd. (35 Taxmann.com 280), cited in 51 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(33)

CIT v. DLF Commercial Developers Ltd.
35 Taxmann.com 280 · 2013 · High Court
51
citing judgments

Loss incurred by certain types of companies in trading derivatives is considered speculative loss under the Explanation to Section 73, as the value of stock derivatives depends on shares. Such speculative losses are ineligible for set-off or carry forward against business income.

Ltd. v. CIT
79 ITR 589 · 1971 · Supreme Court
37
citing judgments

This case is authority for the principle that deductions under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act may be granted in respect of certain categories of receipts. The court's decision in this case is relied upon when interpreting the scope of business activities for tax purposes.

Southern Petro Chemical Industries v. DCIT
3 SOT 157 · 2005 · ITAT
34
citing judgments

Proportionate management expenses are deductible when computing exempt dividend income, as investment decisions are strategic and involve top management.

275(Delhi); Pr. CIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn Ltd.
143 Taxmann.com 135 · 2022 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Where an expense is incurred for the purpose of acquiring a capital asset, and that asset is subsequently sold, the expenditure must be considered as part of the cost of acquisition of that asset for the purpose of calculating capital gains. This is because the expense forms an integral part of the cost of acquiring the asset, not an expenditure of revenue nature.

ACIT v. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd.
33 SOT 277 · 2009 · ITAT
21
citing judgments

An assessee is eligible for proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) on a pro-rata basis in respect of residential units fulfilling the prescribed conditions, even if other units do not.

DCIT v. Indian Oil Petronas Pvt. Ltd.
127 Taxmann.com 389 · 2021 · Reported
17
citing judgments

The Kolkata ITAT determined that the Supreme Court rulings in Tata Tea and Godrej & Boyce do not present contradictory principles regarding Section 115-O and Section 14A, holding that dividend income, though taxed under Section 115-O, is not part of the shareholder's total income under Section 10(33), but this does not absolve the taxpayer from disallowances under Section 14A.

SSPDL Ltd vs. DCIT, 33 TAXMANN.COM 447. 4) CIT v. Suzlon Energy Ltd., 33
32 Taxmann.com 276 · 2013 · High Court
15
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot make additions under Section 14A concerning investments in shares if the investment was not made for future benefit and was intended for business purposes.

Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. v. Jt. CIT
105 ITD 33 · 2007 · ITAT
12
citing judgments

An assessee can challenge reassessment proceedings as being without jurisdiction in collateral proceedings for rectification under section 154, even if they have not appealed the reassessment order.

Judgments citing Section 10(33)

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

ITA 2093/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

proposition that disallowance u/s.14A is to be made in respect of dividend income and income from mutual funds falling within the ambit of section 10(33) of the Act. This proposition is not in dispute as the Assessee has suo moto made a disallowance of the administrative expenditure in this

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 2868/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Josh

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 2867/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

that disallowance u/s. 14A is to be made in respect of dividend income and income from mutual funds falling within the ambit of section 10(33) of the Act. This proposition is not in dispute as the Assessee has suo moto made a disallowance of the administrative expenditure in this

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 2866/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and
Section 1

proposition that disallowance u/s.14A is to be made in respect of dividend income and income from mutual funds falling within the ambit of section 10(33) of the Act. This proposition is not in dispute as the Assessee has suo moto made a disallowance of the administrative expenditure in this

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5442/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5005/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5707/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocat

proposition that disallowance u/s.14A is to be made in respect of dividend income and income from mutual funds falling within the ambit of section 10(33) of the Act. This proposition is not in dispute as the Assessee has suo moto made a disallowance of the administrative expenditure in this

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5033/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

that disallowance u/s. 14A is to be made in respect of dividend income and income from mutual funds falling within the ambit of section 10(33) of the Act. This proposition is not in dispute as the Assessee has suo moto made a disallowance of the administrative expenditure in this

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 4314/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

proposition that disallowance u/s.14A is to be made in respect of dividend income and income from mutual funds falling within the ambit of section 10(33) of the Act. This proposition is not in dispute as the Assessee has suo moto made a disallowance of the administrative expenditure in this

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 4313/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

that disallowance u/s. 14A is to be made in respect of dividend income and income from mutual funds falling within the ambit of section 10(33) of the Act. This proposition is not in dispute as the Assessee has suo moto made a disallowance of the administrative expenditure in this

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 3862/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Adv

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3788/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3785/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

that disallowance u/s. 14A is to be made in respect of dividend income and income from mutual funds falling within the ambit of section 10(33) of the Act. This proposition is not in dispute as the Assessee has suo moto made a disallowance of the administrative expenditure in this

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 4315/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

proposition that disallowance u/s.14A is to be made in respect of dividend income and income from mutual funds falling within the ambit of section 10(33) of the Act. This proposition is not in dispute as the Assessee has suo moto made a disallowance of the administrative expenditure in this

DCIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Housing Developement Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4162/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocat
Section 1

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Housing Developement Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

ITA 4161/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and
Section 1

proposition that disallowance u/s.14A is to be made in respect of dividend income and income from mutual funds falling within the ambit of section 10(33) of the Act. This proposition is not in dispute as the Assessee has suo moto made a disallowance of the administrative expenditure in this

Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers vs. Dibya Trading Co LLP, Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 4330/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer Dibya Trading Co. Llp

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shri Jay BhahsaliFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 10(35)Section 250

gain earned by assessee during year from sale of immovable property. The assessee had also claimed the said dividend income as exempt under section 10(33) of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that appellant had concocted a story in connivance with JM Balanced Fund and IIFL and attempted

M/S. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 868/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

Section 115Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 4

Supreme Court, in the judgment reported as Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd Vs DCIT (supra), has observed that “the fact that section 10(33) and section 115 O of the Act were brought in together; deleted and reintroduced in a composite manner, also, does not assist the assessee” and that ... expenditure incurred to earn the income on which such tax is paid” which is wholly incongruous in view of the provisions of Section 10(33). The payment of dividend distribution tax under section 115 O does not discharge the tax liability of the shareholders. It is a liability

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Ambalal Sarabhi Enterprises Limited, Vadodara

ITA 2067/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

84 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “A “, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ A ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सु"ी सुिच"ा का

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Ambalal Sarabhi Enterprises Limited, Vadodara

ITA 2066/AHD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

84 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “A “, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ A ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सु"ी सुिच"ा का