← All Phrases

“Section 10(100)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(100)8 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(100) is Ramprasad Aggarwal v. ITO 2(3)(2), Mumbai (100 Taxmann.com 172), cited in 53 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(100)

Ramprasad Aggarwal v. ITO 2(3)(2), Mumbai
100 Taxmann.com 172 · 2018 · ITAT
53
citing judgments

The ITAT Jaipur Bench, in the context of search and seizure action under section 132(1), refers to this case alongside other decisions, indicating its relevance in matters arising from search and seizure.

Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v. ITO (Mum.)
100 ITD 173 · 2006 · ITAT
41
citing judgments

A revision order under Section 263 cannot be passed by the Commissioner merely because the Assessing Officer could have made more inquiries; it requires a finding of total non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

Pr. CIT v. Aarham Softronics
412 ITR 623 · 2019 · Supreme Court
40
citing judgments

When an existing unit undertakes substantial expansion under Section 80-IC, the previous year in which the expansion occurs becomes the initial assessment year, entitling the unit to 100% deduction for 10 years from that year.

100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v. ITO
100 ITD 441 · ITAT
28
citing judgments

A revision order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act cannot be passed if the Assessing Officer has considered the material before him, even if the Revenue later disagrees with his conclusion.

Privy Council in CIT v. Gurupada Dutta
14 ITR 100 · 1946 · Reported
26
citing judgments

A rate imposed upon a business owner or occupier, where the quantum is fixed after considering the owner's circumstances including business income, is not assessed on the basis of profits and is therefore allowable as a business expense.

Ram Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. v. Thawar Das (through LRs)
7 SCC 303 · 1999 · Reported
24
citing judgments

The High Court's jurisdiction to interfere with lower appellate court decisions under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to substantial questions of law, and re-appreciation of evidence to interfere with findings of fact is not warranted.

Judgments citing Section 10(100)

Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2388/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 10(100)Section 10(108)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 251

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2387/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 10(100)Section 10(108)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 251

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Yamini Arjan Bharwani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 800/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: April 1, 2012. No restriction on the premium-to-sum assured ratio was there. The policy was purchased by appellant on 29.01.2011 For exemption under Section 10(10D), the amount must be received as part of a matured policy or a payment on the occurrence of a specified contingency (e.g., death of the insured). In the case of premature termination (e.g. surrender of ULIP), the exemption will still be available if the conditions (e.g, death of the insured) above are met. Presently, the pre matu

Section 10Section 10(100)Section 250

conditions (e.g, death of the insured) above are met. Presently, the pre mature termination of the policy will not qualify for exemption under Section 10(100). Instead, the gains from the ULIP will be taxed as capital gains. Hence the ground relating to Additions for taxable ULIP proceeds

Rohit Jayantilal Soni, Dahod vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Taxation, Vadodara

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

ITA 1800/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 10(100)Section 147Section 80D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT And Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR

Maruti Keshavrao Didhore, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 17(3)(i)Section 89

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA

Laxman Gore Shreshtha, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-22(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1909/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra& Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.)
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 57Section 80C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Laxman Gore Shreshtha, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1908/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra& Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.)
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 57Section 80C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Subhash Tandon, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-43(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated herein above

ITA 1382/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Subhash Tandon, Vs Ito, J-3/44-A, Rajouri Garden, Ward-43(1), New Delhi-110027. New Delhi. Pan-Aadpt7651D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri D.R.Arora, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023

Section 10Section 10(100)

That the learned CIT(A) is wholly misconceived in stating that the assessee has claimed the entire redemption amount as tax free under section 10(100) of the Act. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has grossly failed to appreciate that the assessee has offered the long term capital gains ... policies. 5.1.2. The submission of the appellant has been considered but is not acceptable. The redemption receipts from life insurance policies covered under section 10(100) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but not comes under purview of head capital gain. Further, the claim of the appellant has been examined