Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.11

Section 10(1) falls under section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 11 (Incomes not included in total income) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 11 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 10(1) is CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (299 ITR 1), cited in 206 of the 394 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 10(1)

CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd.
299 ITR 1 · 2008 · Supreme Court
206
citing judgments

The project completion method and the percentage of completion method are both recognized methods for recognizing income from real estate contracts.

CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy
32 ITR 466 · 1957 · Supreme Court
132
citing judgments

Income is considered agricultural income, exempt under Section 10(1), only if the land undergoes a measure of cultivation involving basic primary operations prior to germination and subsequent post-germination activities requiring human skill and labour.

H.A. Shah & Co. v. CIT
30 ITR 618 · 1956 · High Court
51
citing judgments

The principle of res judicata or estoppel does not strictly apply to Income Tax authorities, including the Tribunal. However, an earlier decision on the same question should not be reopened if it was arrived at after due inquiry, was not arbitrary or perverse, and no fresh facts are presented.

Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT
56 ITR 1 · 1965 · Supreme Court
46
citing judgments

A business loss arising from employee embezzlement or fraud is deemed to have occurred only when the employer becomes aware of it and realizes that the embezzled amounts cannot be recovered.

CIT v. K. Bhuvanendran
303 ITR 235 · 2008 · High Court
41
citing judgments

An assessment or addition to income cannot be made solely based on a retracted statement, especially when it is not corroborated by seized material or other concrete evidence. The revenue must produce evidence to establish claims like understatement of sale consideration or 'on-money'.

Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT
194 ITR 294 · 1992 · Supreme Court
35
citing judgments

If the actual cost of an asset was wrongly assessed in earlier years, it can be recomputed and corrected in subsequent assessment years. Interest incurred before production on borrowed money for plant construction can be capitalized and added to the cost of fixed assets.

CIT v. Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd.
341 ITR 342 · 2012 · High Court
33
citing judgments

Agricultural income exemption is denied when no lease of land is created, as leasing might be prohibited under relevant land reform acts.

CIT v. Doom Dooma India Ltd.
310 ITR 392 · 2009 · Supreme Court
30
citing judgments

The 'written down value' (WDV) under Section 43(6)(b) is determined by depreciation that has been 'actually allowed', meaning it has been taken into account or granted and given effect to by the Income-tax Officer in computing taxable income.

Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited
3 SCC 563 · 2012 · Reported
26
citing judgments

Condonation of delay in filing appeals is not an exception and should not be an anticipated benefit for government departments. Departments must demonstrate reasonable and acceptable reasons for delay, with bona fide effort, and mere procedural red tape is insufficient grounds.

Mysore Fertiliser Co. v. CIT
59 ITR 268 · 1966 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Income-tax assessments made to the best of the Assessing Officer's judgment must be legal and regular, not arbitrary, vague, or fanciful. The assessment must be based on reason and justice, following established legal principles rather than private opinion or whim.

Judgments on Section 10(1)

Sukhveer Singh Dhilow, Ashoknagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ashok Nagar

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 373/AGR/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Sukhveer Singh Dhilow, Graam- Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Rajtala, Post-Rajtala, Tehsil- Ashoknagar- 473335 Isagarh, Ashok Nagar (Mp)- 473335 Pan :Faapd7764K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.09.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28.09.2026 Order Per : Brajesh Kumar Singh: This Appeal Is Directed Against The Impugned Order Dated 03.02.2026 Passed In Appeal No. Nfac/2011-12/10208852 By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)] U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) For The A.Y. 2012-13, Wherein Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. 2. In This Case, The Assessee Was Not Present During The Course Of Hearing When The Appeal Was Called Twice For Hearing. However, This Case Was Heard With The Assistance Of Sr. Dr. This Case Was Reopened U/S. 148 Of The Act Vide Notice Dated 28.03.2019 On The Basis Of The Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Total Sum Of Rs.52,41,690/- In His Bank Account, Out Of Which Sum Of Rs.48,50,800/- In Cash & Assessee Had Also Earned A Sum Of Rs.4,537/- As Interest Income From The Said Bank Account. The Assessee Did Not Appear During The Assessment Proceedings & The Assessment Was Completed U/S. 144 Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs.52,46,230/-, In Which The Cash Deposit Of Rs.52,41,690/- & The Interest Earned Of Rs.4,537/- Was Added To The Total Income Of The Assessee.

Section 10(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

Venkatachalam Elangovan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only with above observations and directions

ITA 3220/CHNY/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Honourable Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3220 & 3121/Chny /2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2022-23 Venkatachalam Elangovan, V. Income Tax Officer, No.293, Thandavan Nagar, Ward-1(1), Puthumariamman Kovil Street, Salem. Salem, Tamil Nadu-636 003. [Pan: Aagpe9702P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Hitesh, Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) / Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Delhi Dated 18.03.2026, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2022-23. Grouds Of Appeal 1. The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Is Wrong, Illegal & Opposed To Facts Of The Instant Case. 2. The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Is Erroneous In Law, Contrary To Facts On Record, Vitiated By Non-Application Of Mind & Liable To Be Set Aside. 3. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Disposing The Appeal Without Providing Adequate Opportunity To The Appellant. The Said Order Is Opposed To The Provision Of Law & Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh, Advocate, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT
Section 10(1)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

Venkatachalam Elangovan, Salem, Tamilnadu vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only with above observations and directions

ITA 3121/CHNY/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Honourable Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3220 & 3121/Chny /2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2022-23 Venkatachalam Elangovan, V. Income Tax Officer, No.293, Thandavan Nagar, Ward-1(1), Puthumariamman Kovil Street, Salem. Salem, Tamil Nadu-636 003. [Pan: Aagpe9702P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Hitesh, Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) / Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Delhi Dated 18.03.2026, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2022-23. Grouds Of Appeal 1. The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Is Wrong, Illegal & Opposed To Facts Of The Instant Case. 2. The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Is Erroneous In Law, Contrary To Facts On Record, Vitiated By Non-Application Of Mind & Liable To Be Set Aside. 3. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Disposing The Appeal Without Providing Adequate Opportunity To The Appellant. The Said Order Is Opposed To The Provision Of Law & Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh, Advocate, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT
Section 10(1)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A