← All Phrases

“Section 10(23)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(23)103 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(23) is CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (354 ITR 180), cited in 208 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(23)

CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd.
354 ITR 180 · 2013 · High Court
208
citing judgments

Annual Letting Value (ALV) of unsold stock-in-trade flats/shops held by a real estate developer can be assessed under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as income from house property. This approach was followed by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on this decision.

CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra
130 ITR 28 · 1981 · Supreme Court
74
citing judgments

An organization’s purpose qualifies as 'general public utility' under section 2(15) if its primary objective is charitable, even if it incidentally benefits a specific group or generates some profit, provided the dominant motive is not profit-making. Such an entity is eligible for exemptions under the Act.

Vivek Jain v. ACIT
337 ITR 74 · 2011 · High Court
35
citing judgments

If a property is not let out at all, notional income must be computed, and the benefit of section 23(1)(c) (vacancy allowance) cannot be extended. However, section 23(1)(c) can apply to properties let out for two or more years that remain vacant for the entire previous year.

Sole Trustee, Lok Shikshana Trust v. Cit, Mysore
1 SCC 254 · 1976 · Reported
18
citing judgments

A trust's charitable character is not lost if its activities generate profits, as long as those profits are obligated to be spent exclusively or essentially on charitable purposes. The genuineness of the charitable purpose, as demonstrated by the obligation to spend the funds, is the key test.

CIT v. Anderson Marine & Sons (P.) Ltd.
266 ITR 694 · 2004 · High Court
14
citing judgments

Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be exercised beyond a period of two years from the date of the order sought to be revised. This applies to orders passed under section 143(1) and issues not considered during reassessment proceedings under section 143(3)/147.

GTC Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
60 TTJ 308 · 1998 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Denying an opportunity to cross-examine third parties does not amount to a violation of natural justice if their statements and reports are only secondary or subordinate material used to support the main addition.

ITO v. Serum Institute of India Research Foundation
169 ITD 271 · 2018 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Corpus donations are capital receipts and are not taxable, even if the trust is not registered under section 12A/12AA of the Income-tax Act.

Director of Enforcement v. MCTM Corpn. (P) Ltd.
2 SCC 471 · 1996 · Reported
11
citing judgments

Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing a penalty for the breach of a civil obligation. The levy of penalty attaches if the provisions of law are contravened, regardless of the defaulter's guilty intention.

Judgments citing Section 10(23)

M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd., Saraikela vs. Deputy Commissione of Income Tax, Circele-1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/RAN/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 25.09.2017 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019–20 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹62,64,116. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. During The Relevant Previous Year, A Survey Operation Under Section 133A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted At The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 16.02.2019. Subsequently, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time & Furnished Various Details & Documents As Called For. The Same Were Examined & Discussed By The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. During

Section 10(23)Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 40Section 69Section 69C

ICICI Prudential AMC. According to the AO, the said expenditure related to management of mutual fund investments, income from which was exempt under section 10(23). Accordingly, the AO disallowed the amount under section 14A of the Act. The AO also observed that tax was not deducted at source