Section 10(15) of the Income Tax Act
The decision most relied on for Section 10(15) is CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. (233 ITR 468), cited in 246 of the 33 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.
Leading authorities on Section 10(15)
Expenditure providing an enduring advantage, such as upfront lease rent for land, is revenue expenditure if no capital asset is acquired or generated, allowing for deduction under Section 37, even when capitalized in the books of account.
An order cannot be revised under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer took a plausible view, conducted an inquiry, or consistently allowed similar claims in earlier assessment years, as such an order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Revisionary powers cannot be invoked merely because the Commissioner has a different opinion on a plausible view taken by the Assessing Officer.
For banks, the computation of bad debt allowance under sections 36(1)(vii) or 36(1)(viia) must be restricted to only incremental advances, rejecting broader interpretations by tax authorities.
Interest income earned by an assessee on fixed deposits and other interest income is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
This case is authority for the principle that deductions under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act may be granted in respect of certain categories of receipts. The court's decision in this case is relied upon when interpreting the scope of business activities for tax purposes.
A transaction involving the sale and lease-back of assets is not considered a colourable device if the assessee derives substantial benefit and manages its tax affairs to attract a lesser tax as permitted by law.
A company is not required to prove that a debt has become bad to claim a deduction; writing off the debt as irrecoverable in the company's accounts is sufficient, especially after the amendment of Section 36(1)(vii) from April 1, 1989.
The assessment of profits for insurance companies is governed by specific rules within schedules, and the Assessing Officer (AO) cannot make adjustments if Section 44 has been invoked. Insurance businesses may be entitled to exemptions under Section 10(15) even when Section 44 applies, as Section 44 does not exclude such claims.
Where an Assessing Officer makes inquiries and is satisfied with the assessee's explanation, leading to no addition in the final assessment order, the AO is deemed to have formed an opinion, even if no reasons are explicitly given for not making the addition. Reopening based solely on a change of opinion without new tangible material is impermissible.
Judgments on Section 10(15)
Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2
