← All Phrases

“Section 10(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(4)76 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(4) is CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd. (83 Taxmann.com 161), cited in 172 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(4)

CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd.
83 Taxmann.com 161 · 2017 · High Court
172
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A or 153C, additions cannot be sustained if the material or transactions relied upon do not relate or pertain to the assessee. Regular books of accounts not unearthed during search do not constitute incriminating material to justify additions.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT
244 ITR 734 · 2000 · High Court
168
citing judgments

The Revenue is bound by the rule of consistency and cannot adopt a divergent position in a subsequent assessment year unless there is a change in facts or law.

Bhagirath Aggarwal v. CIT
31 Taxmann.com 274 · 2013 · High Court
144
citing judgments

An addition to income based on statements recorded during search operations under Section 132(4) is valid, and the assessee bears the burden of proving such statements incorrect to justify their deletion. The Assessing Officer can rely on such statements, a proposition affirmed by the Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP.

ITO, 19(3) (4) Mumbai v. Shamim M Bharwani
69 Taxmann.com 65 · 2016 · Reported
142
citing judgments

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions are liable to be treated as bogus and added back under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, especially when evidence suggests the involvement of entry operators providing accommodation entries.

UCO Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B
4 SCC 599 · 1999 · Reported
122
citing judgments

Circulars and instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act have the force of law and are binding on all income tax authorities. These circulars can mitigate the rigour of statutory provisions, provide administrative relief, and ensure uniform application of the Act for the benefit of the assessee.

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO
315 ITR 255 · 2009 · High Court
112
citing judgments

Interest earned from the temporary parking of borrowed funds specifically intended for project development, prior to the commencement of business, constitutes a capital receipt inextricably linked to the project and is not taxable as 'income from other sources'.

CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association
247 ITR 201 · 2001 · Supreme Court
112
citing judgments

While there is no statutory time limit for filing Form 10 to claim exemption for income accumulation under Section 11(2), it must be furnished before the completion of assessment proceedings for the Assessing Officer to grant the exemption.

American Hotel and Lodging Association Educational Institute v. CBDT
301 ITR 86 · 2008 · Supreme Court
111
citing judgments

An educational institution is eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) if it exists solely for educational purposes, even if it generates incidental profits. The mere existence of profit does not disqualify an institution from exemption.

Judgments citing Section 10(4)

Neeta Bhambhani, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, (It), Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, I pass the following:-

ITA 3124/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Adv. Ema Bindu, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT D.R
Section 10(4)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69

duly credited to the NRE Account and which was duly disclosed in the return of income, with a claim for exemption under section 10(4)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hence the basis on which the interest inco0me claim is rejected is bad in law. 5. The learned

Zacharia Varughese, Kottayam vs. ITO Ward 5, Kottayam

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 10(4)Section 10(4)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 255(4)Section 69

Third Member on the following questions:- “ 1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee's impugned exemption claim under section 10(4) (ii) read with Proviso thereto, deserves to be accepted or not? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, both the learned ... lower authorities have rightly disallowed assessee's exemption claim of his interest income derived from "NRE" account under section 10(4)(ii) of the Act on the ground that he is a "resident" in the relevant previous year, or not?” 8. The ld. Third Member passed his order

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited ( Successor of Aricent Technologies Holdings Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vyomesh PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

DCIT, Int.Tax, Jaipur vs. Devidass Aswani, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 704/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Devidass Aswani, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 703/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Valji Harji Hirani, Bhuj vs. ITO.(Int.Txn), Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.119/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) Valji Harji Hirani Vs. Ito, (Int. Txn) Meghpar, Nr. Dena Bank, Gandhidham (Gujarat) – 370201 Bhuj (Gujarat) - 370430 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agjph6338K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 05/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp-2), Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 18.01.2024. (Ita 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows: 1. The Learned Drp Panel Has Erroneously Applied Section 69 By Focusing On The Conditions Outlined In Section 69 Without Duly Considering The Applicant'S Submission Regarding The Source Of The Investment. It Is Emphasized That The Nre Fdrs In Question Are From Previous Years & Have Been Made From After Tax Income Earned Abroad, As Clearly Stated In The Submission. The Panel Has Failed To Acknowledge The Satisfactory Explanation Provided By The Assessee Regarding The Source Of Acquisition Of The Investment. Shri Leuva Patel Kelavani Mandal

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 144CSection 144C(5)Section 148Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट "ायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Pavani Dutt, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation, Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 159/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: CA, Satish Kumar SolankiFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 10(4)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69

assessment beyond 3 years. 3. The applicant is a non-resident and hence any deposits made in her NRE account is exempt under section 10(4) of the Income Tax Act. 3 ITA.Nos.158 & 159/Hyd./2025 4. The addition of Rs.16,47,900/- made by the AD and upheld

Pavani Dutt, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation, Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: CA, Satish Kumar SolankiFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 10(4)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69

assessment beyond 3 years. 3. The applicant is a non-resident and hence any deposits made in her NRE account is exempt under section 10(4) of the Income Tax Act. 3 ITA.Nos.158 & 159/Hyd./2025 4. The addition of Rs.16,47,900/- made by the AD and upheld

P K Kunhiraman, Thrissur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 681/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.V.N.Guruvayurappan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR &
Section 10(4)Section 10(4)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

P K Kunhiraman, Thrissur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 680/COCH/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.V.N.Guruvayurappan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR &
Section 10(4)Section 10(4)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

P K Kunhiraman, Thrissur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 674/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.V.N.Guruvayurappan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR &
Section 10(4)Section 10(4)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Pathirikattu Kalam Kunhiraman, Ayyanthole vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 672/COCH/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.V.N.Guruvayurappan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR &
Section 10(4)Section 10(4)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Hemant Gordhanbhai Patel, Nadiad vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn., Vadodara

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1684/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 69

came from NRE Accounts, and the source of these funds was beyond the reach of the authorities. Even upon reading the provisions of Section 10(4) of the Income Tax Act, it was apparent that such incomes were exempt from being included in the total income. 8. In the case

Pralhad Vasantrao Mulick, Pune, Maharashtra vs. The ITO, (It) Ward-3, Pune, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2015-2016
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "सी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “C” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P

Alok Joshi, Uttrakhand vs. Income Tax Officer (It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1247/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 10(34)Section 10(4)Section 10(4)(ii)Section 254(1)

assessee is maintaining Non-Resident External Account (NRE). The assessee earned interest of Rs. 62,933/- which is claimed as exempt under section 10(4)(ii) of the Income Tax Act (Act). The assessee also earned/received dividend of Rs. 412/- which is exempt under section. 10

Rajendra Maganbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation, Vadodara

ITA 106/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.105/Ahd/2023 & 106/Ahd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Respectively Rajendra Maganbhai Patel C-1/8, Bhadran Nagar S.V. Road, Malad West Mumbai - 400 064 Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Asipp 5675 N बनाम / V/S. The Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation, Vadodara (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Revenue By : Shri Parimalsinh N. Parmar, Ar Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 04/03/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14 & 2015-16 & Are Directed Against The Final Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"] Under Section 147 R.W.S.144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]. The Core Issue In Both The Appeals Concerns The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Credits In The Assessee'S Non- Resident External (Nre) Bank Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Parimalsinh N. Parmar, AR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

were solely on account of credits in the NRE account, which are not subject to tax as per the provisions of Section 10(4) of the Act. The AR further emphasized that the assessee's non-resident status is an admitted fact, and throughout the assessment and DRP proceedings ... reiterated that since the AO made the addition based on credits in the NRE account, such an addition is unsustainable as per Section 10(4) of the Act. The AR placed reliance on judicial precedents from the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, which support the assessee's claim that credits

Rajendra Maganbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation, Vadodara

ITA 105/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.105/Ahd/2023 & 106/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Respectively Rajendra Maganbhai Patel The Asstt.Commissioner Of बनाम/ C-1/8, Bhadran Nagar Income Tax, Circle V/S. S.V. Road, Malad West International Taxation, Mumbai – 400 064 Vadodara Maharashtra "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Asipp 5675 N (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh N. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14 & 2015-16 & Are Directed Against The Final Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]. The Core Issue In Both The Appeals Concerns The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Credits In The Assessee’S Non- Resident External (Nre) Bank Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

were solely on account of credits in the NRE account, which are not subject to tax as per the provisions of Section 10(4) of the Act. The AR further emphasized that the assessee’s non-resident status is an admitted fact, and throughout the assessment and DRP proceedings ... reiterated that since the AO made the addition based on credits in the NRE account, such an addition is unsustainable as per Section 10(4) of the Act. The AR placed reliance on judicial precedents from the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, which support the assessee’s claim that credits

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4385/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Grasim Industries Ltd ( Corporate Finance Division), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 3762/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mitesh Vijay Gulati, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int. Tax Ward-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4227/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 6(1)Section 6(1)(c)

Rs.2.77.787/- claimed to be exempt from taxation by the assessee on the ground of being non- resident in India as per provision of section 10(4) of the Act is hereby brought to tax as per the provisions of section 5(1) of the Act considering the assessee