← All Phrases

“Section 10(10)(ii)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(10)(ii)7 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(10)(ii) is CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (341 ITR 385), cited in 270 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(10)(ii)

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.

CIT v. Microlabs Ltd.
383 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
175
citing judgments

If an assessee possesses interest-free funds exceeding investments in tax-free securities, it is presumed that investments are made from these own funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii). Additionally, weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) is computed on the gross expenditure incurred, not net expenditure after reducing income earned.

CIT v. UTI Bank Ltd.
32 Taxmann.com 370 · 2013 · High Court
131
citing judgments

If an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free funds, it is presumed that investments yielding exempt income were made from these funds, therefore disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A is not justified.

ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd.
348 ITR 299 · 2012 · Supreme Court
76
citing judgments

Reopening assessment based on a mere re-look of accounts already furnished and assessed under section 143(3) is not permissible if there was no failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure. The assessment cannot be reopened on the ground that income has escaped assessment merely by re-examining previously filed accounts.

Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT
91 Taxmann 340 · 1997 · Supreme Court
73
citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that discount on the issue of debentures is a deductible expenditure that can be spread proportionately over the period for which the debentures remain outstanding, rather than being claimed entirely in the year of issue. This treatment acknowledges the enduring benefit derived from the funds raised through debentures.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2 v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd.
112 Taxmann.com 322 · 2019 · Supreme Court
71
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot exceed the actual amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant previous year. This principle applies to assessment years prior to the amendment by Finance Bill 2022.

2nd September, 2015 (SC). (ii) CIT, Delhi v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd.
159 Taxmann 306 · 2007 · High Court
49
citing judgments

The court considers statements made by an assessee regarding unrecorded cash receipts utilized for business expenses as reflecting unexplained or unaccounted work in progress.

Loyal Motor Service Co. Ltd. v. CIT
14 ITR 647 · 1946 · High Court
48
citing judgments

A payment of bonus or commission is allowable as a business deduction under Section 36(1)(ii) unless it constitutes a distribution of profits or dividends, thereby distinguishing payments genuinely for services from those merely intended to escape taxation.

Judgments citing Section 10(10)(ii)

Sadulla Syed Noorsha Syed, Nanded vs. Income Tax Officer, Nanded

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 167/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

balance amount of Rs.11,49,579/- shall be available to him as per the prescribed limits under the provisions of section 10(10)(ii) of the Act. The assessee has contended before us that the balance amount of retirement gratuity of Rs.11,49,579/- is also eligible

Mohan Shriniwas Bhise, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 3, Sangli

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions

ITA 900/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Amol R. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10Section 10(10)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 69

with State Government i.e. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and thereafter as per the prescribed limits under 6 ITA No.900/PUN/2024, AY 2019-20 section 10(10)(ii) and 10(10AA)(ii) of the Act for the period of his employment with PSU i.e. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission ... balance amount of Rs.11,49,579/- shall be available to him as per the prescribed limits under the provisions of section 10(10)(ii) of the Act. The assessee has contended before us that the balance amount of retirement gratuity of Rs.11,49,579/- is also eligible

Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, Nagpur vs. ACIT Circle, Chandrapur

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 228/NAG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Virtually From Itat, Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 228/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, 602, Nilgiri Himalaya Empire, Phulmati Layout, Badikheda, Nagpur. Pan: Ackpk1961E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Abay Marathe [Ld. DR’]
Section 10(10)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Shri Adinath Vasantrao Wandhekar, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-4, Panvel, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 1388/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1388/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Adinath Vasantrao Wandhekar, At Post-Shevgaon, Davakinadan Khandoba Ngr., Ahmednagar-414502 Pan: Aaepw7481P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Prasad Bhandari [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [Ld. DR’]
Section 10Section 10(10)Section 10(10)(i)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘A’ PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Suresh Kumar Arora, Hisar vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed as above

ITA 22/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hearing Of Appeal, Which Is Illegal. Hence Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) & Order Of The Assessing Officer, Must Be Quashed.”

For Appellant: Shri V Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 10(10)Section 10(10)(ii)Section 10(10)(iii)Section 147

state government and eligible for exemption u/s, 10(10)(i) of Income Tax Act. He is not covered by Section 10(10)(ii) as he did not receive gratuity under the payment of gratuity Act, 1972. Hence, employees of the University are covered U/s. 10

Chandan Lal Goswami, Hisar vs. ITO, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3620/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatssessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10Section 10(10)(ii)Section 10(10)(iii)Section 250

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Wadhwana Housing Development and Infrastructrure Company, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3148/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 43CSection 50CSection 56

benefit paid to the appellants under the office memorandum is not entitled to exemption in view of specific language of section 10(10)(ii) of the Income-tax Act." The principle of law is simple, where date of application of an amendment is clearly stipulated, the judicial authorities