← All Phrases

“Section 10(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(2)199 judgments

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2172/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

time its trade marks which were not in use prior to the 25th February, 1937, is revenue expenditure and an allowable deduction under section 10(2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?" The High Court, following its previous decision and finding that the fact of the trade marks having

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2171/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

time its trade marks which were not in use prior to the 25th February, 1937, is revenue expenditure and an allowable deduction under section 10(2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?" The High Court, following its previous decision and finding that the fact of the trade marks having

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2170/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

time its trade marks which were not in use prior to the 25th February, 1937, is revenue expenditure and an allowable deduction under section 10(2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?" The High Court, following its previous decision and finding that the fact of the trade marks having

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2118/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

time its trade marks which were not in use prior to the 25th February, 1937, is revenue expenditure and an allowable deduction under section 10(2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?" The High Court, following its previous decision and finding that the fact of the trade marks having

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2117/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

time its trade marks which were not in use prior to the 25th February, 1937, is revenue expenditure and an allowable deduction under section 10(2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?" The High Court, following its previous decision and finding that the fact of the trade marks having

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2954/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 153(6)Section 153A

written down value had to be specified without taking into account the initial depreciation because such depreciation in terms of clause (vi) of section 10(2) of the Act of 1922 could not be deducted in determining the written down value for the purpose of that clause. The case ... this remissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained in clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(v) of the Act of 1922. As observed by Shah J. in Commissioner of Income-taxv. Bhanji Lavji[1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC), section

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2953/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 153(6)Section 153A

written down value had to be specified without taking into account the initial depreciation because such depreciation in terms of clause (vi) of section 10(2) of the Act of 1922 could not be deducted in determining the written down value for the purpose of that clause. The case ... this remissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained in clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(v) of the Act of 1922. As observed by Shah J. in Commissioner of Income-taxv. Bhanji Lavji[1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC), section

VIJAYARANGAM RANGANATH PRAVHAKAR,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 164/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 274

from HUF to my individual account as being a co-parcener of my HUF. In this connection, I draw your kind attention to section 10(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which reads as follows: Incomes not included in total income: “Any sum received by an individual as member

SAURABH GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal in assessment year 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 38/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Saurabh Goyal, The Dcit, House N O. 309, Sector 9, Vs Central Circle-1, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ajapg4217C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Monga, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT DR
Section 10(2)Section 115BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

SAURABH GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal in assessment year 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 37/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Saurabh Goyal, The Dcit, House N O. 309, Sector 9, Vs Central Circle-1, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ajapg4217C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Monga, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT DR
Section 10(2)Section 115BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

MANOJ SURESH TATOOSKAR,PUNE vs. CIRCLE 1(1) , PUNE

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

ITA 1729/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1729/PUN/2025

SEEMA SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2682/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

appellant has taken an alternative plea that the amount, so received from the\nHUF is otherwise, capital receipt not chargeable to tax under section 10(2) of the\nAct as the appellant is a member of the said HUF. As per section 10(2), amount\nreceived out of family income ... source of money\nwhere from the gift received. Thus, the exact source of money, so gifted, is still\nunknown. Two prime conditions of section 10(2) are that gift shall be made by HUF\nonly to its members and that too out of its income. The Appellant has miserably\nfailed

KUNAL RAJENDRA MASHRU,MUMBAI vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, JUNAGADH

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 387/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.387/Rjt/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kunal Rajendra Mashru C/O. Pradip Corporation, D-3, Jeevan Jyot, Cawasji Patel Street, Mumbai – 400001, Maharashtra Pan : Afhpm1835K (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle-1, Junagadh : (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Choksy, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2025 Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Chennai (In Short 'Cit(A)'), Dated 29.05.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 07.11.2019.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Choksy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 10(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

fact in not appreciating the alternative contention of the appellant that the receipt is capital receipt and is exempt under section 10(2) of the Act. 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or delete in all the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 3. The brief facts

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 407/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Assistant Commissioner Gujarat Apollo Industries Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, Block No.486,487, 488, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Mehsana Highway, Ahmedabad. Opp. Water Park, Dholasan, Mehsana-382732. [Pan :Aaacg7248 P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Bp Srivastava, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Mehul K Patel, Ar Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri BP Srivastava, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Mehul K Patel, AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1252/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

Nathmal Tolaram [1973] 88 ITR 234 which was a case arising under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as to the interpretation of section 10(2) (xv) which is corresponding to section 37(1) of the 1961 Act. The question related to the claim of deduction on account ... necessary implication, restricting the power of the Income-tax Officer to exclude the expenditure laid out or expended under section 10(2) (xv) of the 1922 Act. We are, therefore, unable to accede to the submission of the learned counsel for the department. Section 10(2) (xv) , shorn of other

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1245/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

Nathmal Tolaram [1973] 88 ITR 234 which was a case arising under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as to the interpretation of section 10(2) (xv) which is corresponding to section 37(1) of the 1961 Act. The question related to the claim of deduction on account ... necessary implication, restricting the power of the Income-tax Officer to exclude the expenditure laid out or expended under section 10(2) (xv) of the 1922 Act. We are, therefore, unable to accede to the submission of the learned counsel for the department. Section 10(2) (xv) , shorn of other

KHANDELWAL SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,RAMPUR vs. ACIT(CENTERAL), BAREILLY

ITA 93/LKW/2022[F.Y.2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.90 To 93/Lkw/2022

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 813/JPR/2024[AY 2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025
Section 250

meaning of section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and\nclaimed exemption of its income. There was an amendment in section 10(2) of\nthe Act and an explanation was inserted as under:-\n[Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, the expression “local authority\"\nmeans ... observed that the assessee under consideration is not falling in any of\nthe category above hence benefit of section 10(2) is no more available to the\nassessee w.e.f Assessment Year 2003-04. This issue further reached up to the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 812/JPR/2024[AY 2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025
Section 250

meaning of section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and\nclaimed exemption of its income. There was an amendment in section 10(2) of\nthe Act and an explanation was inserted as under:-\n[Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, the expression “local authority\"\nmeans ... observed that the assessee under consideration is not falling in any of\nthe category above hence benefit of section 10(2) is no more available to the\nassessee w.e.f Assessment Year 2003-04. This issue further reached up to the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 811/JPR/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

meaning of section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and claimed exemption of its income. There was an amendment in section 10(2) of the Act and an explanation was inserted as under:- [Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, the expression “local authority” means- (i) Panchayat ... observed that the assessee under consideration is not falling in any of the category above hence benefit of section 10(2) is no more available to the assessee w.e.f Assessment Year 2003-04. This issue further reached up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Showing 1–20 of 199 · Page 1 of 10

...
Section 10(2) — 199 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax