Section 10(10D) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.11

Section 10(10D) 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(10D) is CIT v. Rajan Nanda (349 ITR 8), cited in 21 of the 77 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 10(10D)

CIT v. Rajan Nanda
349 ITR 8 · 2012 · High Court
21
citing judgments

An insurance policy assigned by an employer to an employee loses its character as a keyman insurance policy and becomes an ordinary life insurance policy, with tax implications determined by its status at the time of assignment.

CIT v. Toshoku Ltd.
158 ITR 525 · Reported
5
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 10(10D)

Shri Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Korba, Korba(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

ITA 93/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68

Arvind Cherambath Nair, Gurgaon vs. Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 181/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18 Arvind Cherambath Nair Vs. Circle -1 (1) 507A, Dlf Golf Links, Gurgaon Phase-5, Gurgaon Pan No.Aakpn5463A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 154Section 246A

Gadgil Holdings Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (4), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 914/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.914/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Gadgil Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Pune. Png House, 4Th Floor, 694, Narayan Peth, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aalcs9660G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 08.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Assessee Company Being Aggrieved By The Order & The Decision Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Pune Has Preferred This Appeal On The Following Grounds:- 1] The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Sustaining The Validity Of The Assessment Even Though The Assessing Officer'S Order Was Contrary To The Directions & Instructions Of The Cbdt In Respect Of Scrutiny Assessments. 2] The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.1 Crore Being Insurance Premium Paid Of A Policy On The Life Of Mr. Saurabh Gadgil, Director.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

Swati Dyaneshwar Husukale, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 11/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.11/Nag/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Swati Dyaneshwar Husukale, Vs. Dcit, 38, Ward No.03, Dpc, Bangalore Husukale Building, Butibori, Nagpur – 441108 Maharashtra Pan : Aavph7556D Appellant Respondent

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 194DSection 250Section 4

Alf Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-Mumbai-4, Mumbai

ITA 760/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

Kantilal Jain, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 579/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 194DSection 234BSection 234CSection 250

Ganesh Chand Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 9324/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Suraj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Senior DR
Section 10Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234B

Abhay Maruti Todankar, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Dehi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 696/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194CSection 194DSection 80C

Dineshchandra Dudhwala, Surat vs. ITO, WD. 2(3)(7), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 101/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Dineshchandra Dudhwala, I.T.O., 5/414-415, Kanskiwad, Haripura, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Surat-395003. Surat. Pan No. Abipd 1326 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

Vinayna Veljee, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 49/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri B.T. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 194D

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-1(3), Nagpur vs. Shri Kirit Sharad Joshi, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 609/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Thakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR
Section 10

Bishista Bagchi, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 540/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.540/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bishista Bagchi..........................………………............................…….…………….....Appellant 3C, Santosh Garden, 8, Ekdalia Road, Ballygunj, Kolkata. [Pan:Ayapb6940J] Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru………….…..…...............……........……...…..……………Respondent Appearances By: Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar,Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Gautam Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr,Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :January 31, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.10.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 10Section 2(24)(xi)Section 250Section 56(2)(iv)Section 80C

Sandeep Modi, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 425/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 154

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary vs. Shri. Hothur Mohamed Iqbal, Ballari

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2370/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Prasad Reddy, A.R
Section 10Section 127Section 129Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Goyal Sons Zaveri Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ACIT, Hisar

ITA 475/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Goyal Sons Zaveri Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Scf – 97, Rajguru Market, Vs. Hisar Circle, Distt. Hisar, Haryana. Hisar. Pan: Aaccg8213A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Ravjibhai L. Kakadia, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 20 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 175/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri R.K. SinhaFor Respondent: Smt. Jyothilakshmi Nayak &
Section 10Section 17

Ramasami Suresh, Kanchipuram vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-22(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2795/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2795/Chny/2019 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri. Ramasami Suresh Income Tax Officer, No.1701-A, Bridgewood Hiranandani Non Corporate Ward – 22(4), 1St & 2Nd Floor, Upscale Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Omr, Vs. Egattur, Chengalpattu, Ramakrishna Street, Kancheepuram – 603 103 West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045. [Pan: Bbhps 3747R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. G. Sivasubramanian, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan:

For Appellant: Mr. G. Sivasubramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, JCIT
Section 10Section 80C

Gurvinder Kaur Bhatia, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 151/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

Section 263

Harleen Kaur Bhatia, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 150/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

Section 263

Income Tax Officer 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaa Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 400/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer- M/S Aaa Technologies 2(1)(1), Room No. 543, Pvt. Ltd. 5, Apeejay Vs. 5Th Floor, Aayakar House, Ground Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, 130, Bombay Samachar Mumbai-400020. Marg, Fort, Mumbai- 400023. Pan No. Aadca8858Q Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 144/Mum/2019 (Ita No. 400/Mum/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aaa Technologies Income Tax Officer- Pvt. Ltd. 5, Apeejay 2(1)(1), Room No. 543, Vs. House, Ground Floor, 130, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bombay Samachar Marg, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Mumbai-400020. Pan Noaadca8858Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Maurya Pratap, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Shubham Rathi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/07/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Shubham Rathi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Maurya Pratap, DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40