“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

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

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

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

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

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)

DCIT-23(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2684/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Mr. Manish Sareen, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 44

under section 10(23FB) and exemption under Exemption under section 10(23FB) and exemption under Exemption under section 10(23FB) and exemption under section 10(25) of the Act operates in different fields. section 10(25) of the Act operates in different fields. section 10(25) of the Act operates

Itw India Superannuation Fund, Gurgaon vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri M. Surya Kiran, ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Raja Kumar, DR

Section 10(25)Section 154

delay of 1090 days and remanded the issue to the file of learned jurisdictional Assessing Officer holding that the claim for deduction under section 10(25) of the Act cannot be denied basing on the procedural lapses. Since the facts are identical, learned AR prayed to follow the view taken

La Martiniere Providend Fund., Kolkata vs. ITO, Exemption, Ward-1(4), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 856/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.856/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2018-19 La Martiniere Provident Fund………………………….…………....Appellant 11, Dr. U.N. Brahmachari Street, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan: Aaatl2603A] Vs. Ito, Exemption Ward-1(4), Kolkata…...............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 01, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 08, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Lower Authorities In Denying The Exemption Claimed By The Assessee U/S 10(25) Of The Act. 3. The Contention Of The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Been That The Assessee Is A Provident Fund Duly Recognised By The Commissioner Of Income Tax. However, The Lower Authorities Have Rejected The Claim Of The Assessee For Exemption U/S 10(25) Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Has Not Furnished Recognition Certificate Issued By The

Section 10(25)Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘ए’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग

Tirupur Thozhil Pathukappu Kulu, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1086/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.Suresh, JCIT

Section 10(25)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 164(1)(iv)Section 167A

where income received by the trustees on behalf of a recognised 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

Tuv India Pvt Ltd Employees Group Superannation Scheme, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1365/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaltuv India Pvt. Ltd Employees Group Superannuation Scheme, M/S. Kalyaniwall & Mistry Llp, Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aaatt9836D ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Cpc Bengaluru ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chogule Ld. DR

Section 10(25)Section 10(25)(iii)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 3

learned Assessing Officer (CPC) erred in denying and learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming denial of the exemption under section 10(25) (iii) of the Act to the Appellant. 2. The learned Assessing Officer (CPC) and learned CIT (Appeals) erred in denying exemption under section 10(25

Society of Indian Automobile Manufactures Supernnuation Scheme Trust, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Banglore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1871/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(25)(i)Section 10(25)(iii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234B

appreciating that only wrong return form (TTR-7) was erroneously filed by the appellant but the exemption was rightly claimed under section 10(25)(iii) of the Act. 1.3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the contribution received ... appellant trust was exempt under section 10(25)(i) read with Rule 2 of Part B of Fourth Schedule of the Act, as claimed by the appellant. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the aforesaid adjustment made by the assessing officer/CPC

Society of Indian Automobile Manufactures Supernnuation Scheme Trust, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Banglore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1870/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(25)(i)Section 10(25)(iii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234B

Kandla Trust Port, Supernuation Scheame, Gandhidham vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

ITA 204/RJT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 10(25)(iii)Section 2(6)

appreciate that in this year Rs 84,00,000/- was earned from approved fund as defined in section 2(6) and under section 10(25)(iii) all income received by such fund is exempt, and therefore, assessment order taxing the interest

Kandla Trust Port, Supernuation Scheame, Gandhidham vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

ITA 203/RJT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 10(25)(iii)Section 2(6)

Kandla Trust Port, Supernuation Scheame, Gandhidham vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

ITA 202/RJT/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 10(25)(iii)Section 2(6)

Kandla Trust Port, Supernuation Scheame, Gandhidham vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

ITA 201/RJT/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 10(25)(iii)Section 2(6)

M/S Expleo Solutions Employees Group Gratuity Scheme, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 98/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.98/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Expleo Solutions Employees Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Group Gratuity Scheme, 6A, Income Tax, Central Processing No. 283/3, 283/4, Prince Infocity – Ii, Center, Post Bag No. 2, Electronic City Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Omr Post Office, Bangalore 560 500. Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 096. [Pan:Aabtt3195L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 10Section 10(25)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)(c)

trust under Rule 2(1) of Part ‘C’ of IV Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and its income is exempt under section 10(25)(iv). The assessee filed ITR-7 for the assessment year 2016-17 on 27.07.2016 claiming exemption under section ... Part ‘C’ of IV Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the income of an approved gratuity trust is exempt under section 10(25)(iv) of the Act. It was further submission that the section 10 talks about incomes not included in total income and clause 25

Progility Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Employees Gratuity Fund, Mumbai vs. ITO 18 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 664/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Progility Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-18(1)(4), Employee Gratuity Fund, Vs. 108 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 601, 6Th Floor, 247 Park, Tower B, Parel, L.B.S. Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Aagts 8643 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, DR

Section 10(25)Section 10(25)(iv)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Iecs Limited Employee Pf Covered Under Fps, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Banglore

ITA 2922/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Senior DR

Section 10(25)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 17(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP

ACIT(E), Circle- 1(1), New Delhi vs. Indian Airlines Employees Provident Fund, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the ld AO is dismissed

ITA 1687/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit(E), Vs. Indian Airlines Employees Circle-1(1), Provident Fund, 113, Airlines New Delhi House, Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Road, Near Sansad Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaati2893R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajhesh Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Najmi, CIT DR

Section 10(25)Section 10(25)(i)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 58B(1)

return of income on 26.03.2015. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the ld AO questioned the exemption under section 10(25) of the Act. According to the ld AO the assessee has repayable withdrawal of Rs. 13.31crores, delayed payments of Rs. 8.25 crores and interest ... paid for prior period of Rs. 5.53 crores, totaling all to Rs. 21.62 crores which are not covered by provisions of section 10(25)(i) of the Act as only interest of government securities and public securities is exempt. Therefore, the above sum of Rs. 21.62 was disallowed

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dcm Limited

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA - 987 / 2007HC Delhi13 Jan 2009

loss suffered by the DCM Employees Provident 2009:DHC:57-DB Bansal in support of her contentions relied upon the provisions of Section 10(25) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to in short as the „Act‟). It was contended that the deduction claimed by the Assessee could ... assessee in relation to income which forms part of the total income under the Act. Since the income from securities was exempt under Section 10(25) of the Act and was not included in computing the total income of the assessee, the expenditure incurred could not be claimed as deduction