← All Phrases

“Section 10(25)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(25)56 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(25) is Commissioner of Income-tax v. Society for Promotion of Education, Adventure Sport & Conservation of Environment (382 ITR 6), cited in 26 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(25)

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Society for Promotion of Education, Adventure Sport & Conservation of Environment
382 ITR 6 · 2016 · Supreme Court
26
citing judgments

If an assessee has applied for approval of a fund or exemption within a reasonable time, the exemption should not be denied due to delays in processing by the tax authorities. The taxing authorities erred in holding that gross receipts are taxable without allowing expenditure when exemption is denied.

CIT v. Programme for Community Organization
116 Taxmann 608 · 2001 · Supreme Court
23
citing judgments

A charitable or religious trust is entitled to accumulate 25% of its income, with donations received constituting its property for this purpose.

Sanjay Oil Cake Industries v. CIT
10 DTR 153 · 2008 · High Court
21
citing judgments

When circumstantial evidence combined with the assessee's conduct leads to the conclusion that accommodation entries were taken and purchases were not genuine, a disallowance of 25% of the impugned purchases may be considered sufficient.

Amiya Sales and Industries v. ACIT
274 ITR 25 · 2005 · High Court
18
citing judgments

Reopening an assessment under section 147 after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year requires the recorded reasons to clearly indicate a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts necessary for the assessment.

Para 21, 22, 24, 25, 26 10. Magotteaux International SA v. DCIT
141 Taxmann.com 8 · 2022 · Reported
13
citing judgments

Fees for computer software and technical services are taxable as fees for technical services under the Income Tax Act and are not royalties, unless the software is embedded with an enduring benefit and is integral to the business.

Judgments citing Section 10(25)

Tulsi Trust, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1410/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwaltulsi Trust Dy. Cit, B-60/61, C/O Bajaj Auto Circle-49(1), Limited, Naraina Industrial Vs. New Delhi. Area Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110028 Pan-Aaatt0503H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mahender Gohel, Ar (Virtual) Department By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl./ Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Hyderabad [Cit(A) In Short], Dated 26.03.2025 In Appeal No. Addl. / Jcit-(A) - 4 Hyderabad/10061/2022-23 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Trust & Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.07.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,67,53,750/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) By The Cpc Tulsi Trust Vs. Dcit Wherein The Assessee Was Charged Tax At A Flat Rate Of 30% & Surcharge As Applicable As Against The Normal Rate Of Tax As Per The Slab Provided In The Act Paid By The Assessee. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 250

where income received by the trustees on behalf of a recognized provident fund, approved superannuation fund and approved gratuity fund is governed by section 10(25) of the Income-tax Act, the question of their being charged to tax does not arise So far as cases where income is receivable