“Section 10(33)”
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)
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.
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.
Proportionate management expenses are deductible when computing exempt dividend income, as investment decisions are strategic and involve top management.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
