← 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)

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

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

ITA 131/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanvindhya Trust, Vs. Dcit, Circle 49 (1), B – 60/61, C/O Bajaj Auto Limited, Delhi. Naraina Industrial Estate, Delhi – 110 028. (Pan : Aaatv0303K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mahender Gohel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Order : 23.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) – 3, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Jcit (A)] Dated 12.11.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-22 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Ground 1 - Rate Of Tax: The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Has Erred In Upholding Levy Of Tax At Flat Rate Of30%, Instead Of Normal Slab Rates Applicable In The Case Of The Appellant. The Learned Cit(A) & The Learned Assessing Officer Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Is An Association Of Persons (Aop)/Charitable Trust Not Claiming Benefits Of Section 11 Of The Act & Is Liable To Pay Tax At The Slab Rates Applicable In The Case Of An Individual, Etc. The Appellant Prays That The Learned Assessing Officer Be Directed To Re-Compute

For Appellant: Shri Mahender Gohel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 167BSection 234BSection 234C

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

Mayurakshi Gramin Bank Employees Provident Fund, Pbgb Regional, Suri, Birbhum vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 3, Suri, Birbhum

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

ITA 1159/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1159/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Mayurakshi Gramin Bank Employees Provident Fund,………………………………………Appellant Pbgb Regional, Suri Birbhum-731101, West Bengal [Pan:Aabtm2580Q] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,……...Respondent Circle-3, Suri, Aayakar Bhawan, Lalkuthipara, Suri, Birbhum-731101, W.B. Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhro Das, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: January 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 10Section 10(25)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 254

submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the income of the recognized Provident Fund is exempt as per Section 10(25) of the Act and also the assessee fund is statutorily not required to file return of income under section 139 of the Act as duly clarified ... have perused the material available on record. So far as the additional ground is concerned, for the sake of convenience, we reproduce the section 10(25) of the Act, which reads as under:- (i) interest on securities which are held by, or are the property of, any provident fund

Ici India Management Staff Gratuity Fund, Haryana vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 33, Kolkata

ITA 1508/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1507/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ici India Limited Employees Gratuity Fund,……………………………………….Appellant Magnum Tower, 9Th Floor, Golf Course, Extension Road, Sector-58, Gurgaon-122011, Haryana [Pan:Aaati3857K] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Circle-33, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 & I.T.A. No. 1508/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ici India Management Staff Gratuity Fund,……………………………………….Appellant Magnum Tower, 9Th Floor, Golf Course, Extension Road, Sector-58, Gurgaon-122011, Haryana [Pan:Aaati4659R] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Circle-33, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

their respective appeals is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. Assessing Officer vide which benefit of section 10(25(iv) was denied to each assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has confirmed the addition of Rs.59,17,898/- (in the case of ICI India ... Ground No. 1 & 2 These grounds are preferred against the action of the Ld. AO in denying the exemption claimed by appellant under section 10(25)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) amounting to Rs.59,17,898/- in the order under section

Ici India Limited Employees Gratuity Fund, Haryana vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 33, Kolkata

ITA 1507/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1507/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ici India Limited Employees Gratuity Fund,……………………………………….Appellant Magnum Tower, 9Th Floor, Golf Course, Extension Road, Sector-58, Gurgaon-122011, Haryana [Pan:Aaati3857K] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Circle-33, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 & I.T.A. No. 1508/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ici India Management Staff Gratuity Fund,……………………………………….Appellant Magnum Tower, 9Th Floor, Golf Course, Extension Road, Sector-58, Gurgaon-122011, Haryana [Pan:Aaati4659R] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Circle-33, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

their respective appeals is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. Assessing Officer vide which benefit of section 10(25(iv) was denied to each assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has confirmed the addition of Rs.59,17,898/- (in the case of ICI India ... Ground No. 1 & 2 These grounds are preferred against the action of the Ld. AO in denying the exemption claimed by appellant under section 10(25)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) amounting to Rs.59,17,898/- in the order under section