← All Phrases

“Section 10(24)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(24)11 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(24) is CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411), cited in 524 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(24)

CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
43 Taxmann.com 411 · 2014 · High Court
524
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund, ESI, and other welfare funds, if deposited by the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as a deduction and cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) or Section 43B, even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective welfare Acts.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
341 ITR 385 · 2012 · High Court
270
citing judgments

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT
5 SCC 482 · 1997 · Supreme Court
261
citing judgments

For income to be assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' as per Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, beneficial ownership or the right to enjoy the property is sufficient; legal ownership is not a mandatory prerequisite.

State Bank of Travancore v. CIT
158 ITR 102 · 1986 · Supreme Court
222
citing judgments

Under the mercantile system of accounting, interest income accrues and is taxable in the year it arises, even for "sticky" or doubtful loans, as the right to receive the income is paramount, not its actual receipt, provided there is an agreement for payment.

East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT
42 ITR 49 · 1961 · Supreme Court
147
citing judgments

Rental income from immovable property owned by an assessee must be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property' (Section 22), even if the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate or property development and leasing. This emphasizes the mandatory classification of income under its specific statutory head.

CIT v. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities
135 ITR 485 · 1982 · High Court
98
citing judgments

The income of a charitable trust, particularly income from property held under trust, for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 11, must be computed in a normal commercial manner, without strict reference to the computation provisions for different heads of income like Section 14 or Section 24(a). This approach ensures that the income available for application or accumulation is assessed on commercial principles.

PCIT v. Sintex Industries Limited
93 Taxmann.com 24 · 2018 · Supreme Court
89
citing judgments

When an assessee has sufficient own or surplus non-interest-bearing funds to cover investments yielding exempt income, no disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A is warranted, and Rule 8D for estimating such expenditure does not apply.

CIT v. Chugandas and Co.
55 ITR 17 · 1965 · Supreme Court
83
citing judgments

When a taxpayer's sole source of income is from the letting out of properties, such rental income is to be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property'.

Judgments citing Section 10(24)

Shri Dandi Sewa Ashram, Onkareshwar vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption, Bhopal

ITA 560/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 10Section 10(24)Section 11Section 124Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253

Shri Dandi Sewa Ashram ITA No. 560/Ind/2025 - AY: 2017-18 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX

Dadasaheb Tirodkar Shaikshanik Academy, Sindhudurg vs. Itod Exemption Ward, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1016/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1016/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 | Dadasaheb Tirodkar V | The Income Tax Officer, Shaikshanik Academy, S Exemption Ward, Pandurtitha Pandur, Kudal, Kolhapur. Maharashtra. Sindhudurg - 416520. Pan: Aactd5657Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Mayuresh Doshi – Ar'S Shri Eknath Abhang –Addl.Cit(Dr) 23/07/2025 30/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Udaipur Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 27.02.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.154 R.W.S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 09.07.2024. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 10Section 10(21)Section 10(228)Section 10(24)Section 10(46)Section 10(47)Section 11Section 11(3)Section 13ASection 13B

Exemption under section 10(23D) 9e f Exemption under section 10(23DA) 9f g Exemption under section 10(23FB) 9g h Exemption under section 10(24) 9h i Exemption under section 10(46) 9i Exemption under section 10(47) 9j 10 Amount eligible for exemption under any clause, other than

Nesco Employees Gratuity Fund Trust, Balasore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Balasore

ITA 159/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Nihar Ranjan Biswal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(24)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

submissions. To begin with, there is no dispute that the assessee filed the ITR claiming exemption under an incorrect section i.e. section 10(24). Therefore, there is no apparent mistake in disallowing the claim u/s 143(1) of the Act. Of course, the CPC ought to have provided the assessee

Western India Cinematographers Association, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Income Tax Officer Ward 25(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, in view of decision in ITA No

ITA 4702/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Govind Javeri, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. D.R
Section 10(24)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

surplus income of Rs.21,15,877/- and has availed exemption u/s 10(24) of the Act. The Assessee is covered only by section 10(24) of the Act and therefore partial exemption only”. 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner on various grounds

Western India Cinematographers Association, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, in view of decision in ITA No

ITA 4701/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Govind Javeri, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. D.R
Section 10(24)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

surplus income of Rs.21,15,877/- and has availed exemption u/s 10(24) of the Act. The Assessee is covered only by section 10(24) of the Act and therefore partial exemption only”. 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner on various grounds

Western India Cinematographers Association, Mumbai vs. NFAC Delhi, Income Tax Officer Ward 25(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, in view of decision in ITA No

ITA 4700/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Govind Javeri, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. D.R
Section 10(24)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

surplus income of Rs.21,15,877/- and has availed exemption u/s 10(24) of the Act. The Assessee is covered only by section 10(24) of the Act and therefore partial exemption only”. 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner on various grounds

Western India Cinematographers Association, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi I.T.O, Ward 25(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, in view of decision in ITA No

ITA 4699/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Govind Javeri, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. D.R
Section 10(24)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

surplus income of Rs.21,15,877/- and has availed exemption u/s 10(24) of the Act. The Assessee is covered only by section 10(24) of the Act and therefore partial exemption only”. 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner on various grounds

ITO (TDS), Patiala vs. M/S S.A. Singh & Co., Bhawanigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 986/CHANDI/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(24)Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 133ASection 194CSection 194C(6)Section 2(31)Section 201(1)

income of the Truck Operator Union is not exempt under section 12A or under section 10(24) of the Act and even provision of Section 194C(6) are not applicable as the Truck Operator Union uses 892 trucks of its members way beyond the prescribed limit of ten trucks

ITO-26-(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sharada Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stand dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1417/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey&F Shri Amarjit Singhito-26(2)(1), Vs. M/S Sharada Enterprises, Room No. 127, 1 St Floor, 84-A, Mittal Court, 224, G-Block, Kautilya Bhavan, Nariman Point, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aamts9429H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(23)Section 5

P a g e | 1 ITA No.1417/Mum/2023 & C.O 66/Mum/2023 ITO-26(2)(1) Vs. M/s Sharada Enterprises IN THE INCOME

Shri Saileshbhai Shambhubhai Hirpara, Jetpur vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Rajkot

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 59/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 59/Rjt/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Shri Saileshbhai The Deputy बनाम/ Shambhubhai Hirpara Commissioner Of Income Vs. C/O. Nishan Export, Tax Dhoraji Road, Jetpur, Circle-1(2), Rajkot Rajkot - 360370 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeph3006R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : None Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, ""यथ" क" ओर से / Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 23/08/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 30/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.01.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Rajkot (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2018 Passed By The Dc/Ac, Circle-1(2), Rajkot Under Section

For Appellant: None
Section 1Section 10(24)Section 144Section 14A

profit and therefore what the assessee got by way of profits though the same is not taxable in his hands by virtue of section 10(24), the same does form part of the total income under the prevision of the Act namely in the case of the partnership firm

Screen Writers Association, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -25, Mumbai

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

ITA 3686/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3686/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi & MsFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan, Ld. DR by
Section 10(24)Section 143(2)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP & Ms. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A