← All Phrases

“Section 10(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(3)36 judgments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. RAVI BHARADWAJ, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2232/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘A’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. RAVI BHARADWAJ, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2231/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘A’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. RAVI BHARADWAJ, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2230/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘A’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 902/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

That the appellant was present in India only for 117 days during the relevant\nprevious year, as affirmed in the order passed under Section 10(3) of the Black\nMoney (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.\nGiven that she resided outside India for the majority ... crucial facts:\na. That during the year under consideration, the appellant was a non-resident, as\nalso affirmed by the order passed under Section 10(3) of the Black Money\n(Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, and as\nsuch, these credits were not liable

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 901/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2019-20
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

That the appellant was present in India only for 117 days during the relevant\nprevious year, as affirmed in the order passed under Section 10(3) of the Black\nMoney (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.\nGiven that she resided outside India for the majority ... crucial facts:\na. That during the year under consideration, the appellant was a non-resident, as\nalso affirmed by the order passed under Section 10(3) of the Black Money\n(Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, and as\nsuch, these credits were not liable

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 900/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

That the appellant was present in India only for 117 days during the relevant previous year, as affirmed in the order passed under Section 10(3) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. Given that she resided outside India for the majority ... crucial facts: a. That during the year under consideration, the appellant was a non-resident, as also affirmed by the order passed under Section 10(3) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, and as such, these credits were not liable

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 899/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

That the appellant was present in India only for 117 days during the relevant\nprevious year, as affirmed in the order passed under Section 10(3) of the Black\nMoney (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.\nGiven that she resided outside India for the majority ... facts:\n\na. That during the year under consideration, the appellant was a non-resident, as\nalso affirmed by the order passed under Section 10(3) of the Black Money\n(Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, and as\nsuch, these credits were not liable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 07, DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SHRITI VERMA, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 and 3 are allowed

ITA 4486/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Dcit, Shriti Verma, Central Circle-07, A-1/78, Second Delhi Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Pan: Aizpv6398R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Meenu Mittal Department Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) By Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm

Section 10(1)Section 10(3)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153A

alleged foreign bank account(s) herein. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned Assessing Officer itself had passed its assessment order under section 10(3) of the Black Money Act, 2015 herein (supra) holding the assessee Ms. Shriti Verma as not the beneficial owner. This clinching finding has gone

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 07, DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SHRITI VERMA, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 and 3 are allowed

ITA 4485/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Dcit, Shriti Verma, Central Circle-07, A-1/78, Second Delhi Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Pan: Aizpv6398R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Meenu Mittal Department Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) By Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm

Section 10(1)Section 10(3)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153A

alleged foreign bank account(s) herein. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned Assessing Officer itself had passed its assessment order under section 10(3) of the Black Money Act, 2015 herein (supra) holding the assessee Ms. Shriti Verma as not the beneficial owner. This clinching finding has gone

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 07, DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SHRITI VERMA, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 and 3 are allowed

ITA 4484/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Dcit, Shriti Verma, Central Circle-07, A-1/78, Second Delhi Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Pan: Aizpv6398R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Meenu Mittal Department Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) By Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm

Section 10(1)Section 10(3)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153A

alleged foreign bank account(s) herein. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned Assessing Officer itself had passed its assessment order under section 10(3) of the Black Money Act, 2015 herein (supra) holding the assessee Ms. Shriti Verma as not the beneficial owner. This clinching finding has gone

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 07, DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SHRITI VERMA, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 and 3 are allowed

ITA 4483/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Dcit, Shriti Verma, Central Circle-07, A-1/78, Second Delhi Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Pan: Aizpv6398R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Meenu Mittal Department Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) By Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm

Section 10(1)Section 10(3)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153A

alleged foreign bank account(s) herein. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned Assessing Officer itself had passed its assessment order under section 10(3) of the Black Money Act, 2015 herein (supra) holding the assessee Ms. Shriti Verma as not the beneficial owner. This clinching finding has gone

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW (THROUGH LEGAL REP JEHAN MOTASHAW ),MUMBAI vs. CENTAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6352/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW,MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6350/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW,MUMBAI vs. JCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6349/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW (THROUGH LEGAL REP JEHAN MOTASHAW),MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6348/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW (TROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVA JEHAN MOTASHAW ),MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6347/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW ( THROUGH LEGAL REP JEHAN MOTASHAW ),MUMBAI vs. JCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6346/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

LATE DARIUS MOTASHAW (THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE JEHAN MOTASHAW ),MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6345/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

M/S CHATTA SUGAR CO. LTD,MATHURA vs. A.C.I..T CIRCLE-3, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 129/AGR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

nature, the case was held to be not covered by section 4(3)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (equivalent to section 10(3) of the Act of 1961), and the receipt was held to be taxable. 11. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court (jurisdictional High Court) had also

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 212/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

only under item E of section 14. That being so, it cannot be treated as a casual or non-recurring receipt under section 10(3) and be subjected to tax under section 56. The argument of the appellant that even if the income cannot be chargeable under section 45, because ... hold that everything that is exempted from capital gains by the statute could be taxed as a casual or non-recurring receipt under section 10(3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Naliníkant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2