← All Phrases

“Section 10(21)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(21)25 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(21) is Shri Dilipkumar Lalwani and Others (107 Appeals) 21 19.12 In Pr. CIT v. Vinita Chaurasia (394 ITR 758), cited in 71 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(21)

Shri Dilipkumar Lalwani and Others (107 Appeals) 21 19.12 In Pr. CIT v. Vinita Chaurasia
394 ITR 758 · 2017 · High Court
71
citing judgments

The amended provisions of Section 153C require that documents found during a search must 'pertain to' or 'relate to' the assessee. The High Court held that this requirement does not apply to searches conducted prior to the amendment.

Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT
57 ITR 21 · 1965 · Supreme Court
67
citing judgments

The onus is on the Income Tax Department to prove that a particular receipt or amount is taxable and falls under the provisions of the Income-tax Act.

Welham Boys' School Society v. CBDT
285 ITR 74 · 2006 · High Court
36
citing judgments

An order passed by the CIT under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act is quasi-judicial. Until October 1, 2004, there was no express provision in the Act for the CIT to cancel a registration certificate once granted.

ITO v. Suraj Jewellary (India) Ltd. (
21 SOT 79 · 2008 · ITAT
20
citing judgments

Receipts that are not income in nature should be excluded from the profit and loss account before computing Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under section 115JB.

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.

80 ITR 21 9. 10. CIT v. Shrikishan Chandmal (Madhya Pradesh HC) 60 ITR 303 11. CIT v. R. Dalmia (Delhi HC)
162 ITR 373 · 1986 · Supreme Court
10
citing judgments

The character of an amount received as income is not conclusively determined by how it is assessed under the Income Tax Act. The head of income enumerated in Section 14 of the Act does not define the essential characteristics of income.

Judgments citing Section 10(21)

M/S. Star Delta Transformers Ltd., Bhopal vs. The ITO ( TDS) -2, Bhopal

The appeals are allowed

ITA 378/IND/2022[2013-14 Q-1]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 133ASection 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201b

further submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly observed that the CBDT Circular dated 07.04.2016 is related to exemption under Section 10(21) of the Act but the exemption certificates are issued dated 08.07.2008 and 07.04.2016 and whether the exemption has ITA Nos.378to387/Ind/2022 M/s. Star Delta Transformers ... relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the autonomous societies CPRI & ERDA both are entitled to exemption under Section 10(21) of the Act and therefore, per se there is no taxability on the income of these autonomous societies. When the deductee itself is not liable

Aspee Agro Equipment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 3167/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-

ITA 3167/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Bhaskaran
Section 10(21)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)

Board of Direct Taxes has rejected the Application filed by the donee institution, i.e., Aspee Agricultural Research & Development Foundation, for obtaining approval under Section 10(21) of the Act, and therefore, the Appellant has incorrectly claimed deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of donations made

The Synthetic & Silk Mills Research Association, Mumb Ai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 693/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Synthetic & Art Silk Mills The Commissioner Of Income Research Association, Tax (Exemption), Sasmira Marg, Worli, Vs. Room No. 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Mumbai-400025. Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaatt 4271 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Tanzil Pedvekar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Vijay Shankar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Tanzil Pedvekar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Vijay Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 10(21)Section 11Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

American Spring & Pressing Works Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 12(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3496/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2010-11
Section 10(21)Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER American

Director of Income Tax vs. Indian National Science Academy

ITA - 1345 / 2008HC Delhi22 Jan 2010
Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

Association”.” 3. Once an approval is granted as scientific association to an institute, such an institute becomes entitled to avail tax exemption under Section 10(21) of the Act, in the following terms: “10. Incomes not included in total income.-In computing the total income of a previous year ... other institutions”, which would mean it was partly engaged in research activities, and not “Scientific Research Association”, benefit of exemption under Section 10(21) of the Act would not be available. 5. Since the last approval was coming to end of 31st March, 2003, the INSA again made an application