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)

Monsanto India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed, whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 8545/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.8338/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-2007) Adcit-8(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S Monsanto India Limited, 5Th Floor, Ahura Centre, 96, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai- 400093 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm 2875 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.8545/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Monsanto India Limited, 5Th Vs. Acit-8(2), Mumbai Floor, Ahura Centre, 96, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400093 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm 2875 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P.Singh ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M):

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 10(1)Section 145ASection 14ASection 2(1)(a)Section 234BSection 80I