← All Phrases

“Section 10(2)(x)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(2)(x)2 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(2)(x) is CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411), cited in 524 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(2)(x)

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.

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation)
123 Taxmann.com 252 · 2021 · ITAT
65
citing judgments

The amendment introducing a tolerance band (safe harbour) under section 50C, allowing a difference of up to 10% between actual sale consideration and stamp duty valuation, applies retrospectively. If the difference falls within this limit, the actual sale consideration is adopted as the full value of consideration for computing capital gains.

Bombay in Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. v. CIT
93 Taxmann.com 63 · 2018 · High Court
53
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot make a prima facie adjustment to the total income under Section 143(1)(a) if the adjustment involves a debatable issue.

CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd.
116 ITR 60 · 1979 · Supreme Court
48
citing judgments

Dharmada collections are not taxable income of the assessee if they are genuinely meant for and spent on charitable purposes, or if they are voluntary contributions not accruing to the assessee's own benefit.

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.

L.RS. AND ORS. (2016)10 SCC 315 and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE & ORS. v. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. LTD.
406 ITR 513 · 2018 · High Court
48
citing judgments

For comparability analysis in transfer pricing, giant companies with significantly higher turnover and brand value cannot be compared with small-sized companies, and such companies should be excluded from the comparable set.

H.E.H. Nizam’s Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT
59 ITR 582 · 1966 · Supreme Court
30
citing judgments

For income to be exempt under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, it must be 'actually applied' for charitable or religious purposes; notional expenditure does not qualify. The burden of proving exemption lies with the assessee.

Madras in Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd. v. DCIT
303 ITR 71 · Reported
24
citing judgments

The Income Tax Department can make a prima facie adjustment to taxable income under Section 143(1)(a) when an amount is inadmissible due to Section 43B overriding Section 36(1). This adjustment is permissible as Section 43B takes precedence over Section 36(1).

Judgments citing Section 10(2)(x)