Section 10(10CC) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.11

Section 10(10CC) 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(10CC) is CIT v. L.W. Russel (53 ITR 91), cited in 15 of the 27 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 10(10CC)

CIT v. L.W. Russel
53 ITR 91 · 1964 · Supreme Court
15
citing judgments

Payments made by an employer towards pension or annuity schemes are not taxable as perquisites in the hands of the employee unless the employee has acquired a vested right in the sum paid. Similarly, employer contributions to approved superannuation funds are not perquisites if the employee has no vested right.

CIT v. Mehar Singh Sampuran Singh Chawla
90 ITR 219 · 1973 · High Court
7
citing judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax v. J.G. Keswani
202 ITR 391 · 1993 · High Court
5
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 10(10CC)

DDIT(I.T.)-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Joy Partnership, Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection No

ITA 1866/KOL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1866/Kol/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007) Asstt. Dit, International Vs. M/S. Joy Partnership Taxation-1 (1) Kolkata, 85/1, Mining Centre, Topsia Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th Floor, Road (South) Kolkata-700046 P-7, Chowringhee Square, Room No. 4/5 Kol-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfj6427H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & Co No.89/Kol/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007) M/S. Joy Partnership Vs. Asstt. Dit, International Taxation-1 (1) Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th 85/1, Mining Centre, Topsia Road (South) Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700046 Room No. 4/5 Kol-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfj6427H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajat K Kureel Jcit Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sushonita Basu, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement / /2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi Kolkata, In Appeal No.9/Cit(A)-Vi/2008-09/Ddit(Ii)-1/Kol, Dated 11.08.2009, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The 2 & Co No.89/K/2009 M/S Joy Partnership Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Sushonita Basu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat K Kureel JCIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

ACIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Gelis Hueseyin, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and C

ITA 6045/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Niti Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar (DR)
Section 10

Asst.C.I.T, Bangalore vs. Shri. Ravi Gautham, Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 475/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iv)Section 192Section 40

Yoshio Kubo vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA-441/2003HC Delhi31 Jul 2013

Yoshio Kubo vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA - 441 / 2003HC Delhi31 Jul 2013

Yoshio Kubo vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA/441/2003HC Delhi31 Jul 2013

CIT vs. Adam Robert John Mynott

ITA/1990/2010HC Delhi03 Aug 2012

Bench: The Tribunal Held As Follows: - “5. I Have Considered The Submissions Made By The Appellant & The Assessment Order. The Only Issue Of Dispute In This Case Is That Out Of The Tax Borne By The Employer On Monetary As Well As Non Monetary Benefits, The Assessee Claimed A Sum Of `1,05,765/- As Exempt Stating That This Relates To The Non Monetary Benefits & Therefore, Was Exempt U/S 10(10Cc) Of The I.T. Act & Should Not Be Subjected To

Section 10