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)

Brijesh Kumar Goswami, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(2), Delhi

In the result, the instant assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2415/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Brijesh Kumar Goswami, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-305, Majlis Park, Adarsh Ward 36(2), New Dehi Nagar, New Dehi – 110 033 (Pan: Adapg2435L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.02.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Being Individual, Not Having Filed His Income Tax Return For The Ay 2012-13, Simply For The Reason That The Total Income For The Year Was Less Than The Threshold Limit Of Assessment. In The Meanwhile, In Compliance To Notice U/S. 148 Dated 30.3.2019 The Assessee Furnished His Return Of Income, Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs. 13,521/- & Claimed Refund Of Rs. 2,230/-. Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 8,60,180/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 13,520/- & Made The Addition Of Rs. 1,09,640/- On Account Of Share Trading Transactions With Mcx & Rs. 71,316/- On Account Of Share Trading With Bse & A Sum Of Rs. 87,584/- As Adhoc Disallowance Of Expenditure Claimed. Besides This, He Has Also Denied The Exemption On Account Of Agricultural Income, Thereby Making

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(1)Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148

Ganendra Nath Halder, Little Andaman vs. ACIT Circle 3(2), Port Blair

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1620/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1620/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ganendra Nath Halder, Little Andaman………………....Appellant Vivekanandapur Post, Little Andaman Union Territory Of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Andaman & Nicobar Islands-744207. [Pan: Amnph7301J] Vs. Acit Circle-3(2), Port Blair…………………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 29, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.06.2024 Passed By The Cit, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Pune [In Short Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee A Resident Of Little Andaman, Is A Super Senior Citizen Aged 82 Years During The Relevant Assessment Year. He Did Not File A Return Of Income Under Section 139 For A.Y. 2017–18. Based On The Information Available In The Departmental Database & Its Data, It Was Observed That Cash Deposits Of ₹10,00,000 Were Made In The Assessee’S Bank Account—₹5,00,000 Each On 10.11.2016 & 11.11.2016 Respectively. Accordingly Notice Under Section 142(1) Was Issued On 13.03.2018 Through Speed Post, But The Assessee Failed To Respond Or File The Return. Subsequently, The

Section 10(1)Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69