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)

Callus Biotech Private Limited, Kolhapur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kolhapur

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1009/PUN/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1009/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Callus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. R/S 735, A/P Kandgaon, Radha Nagari Rd., Tal: Karveer, Kolhapur-416001. Pan: Aadcc5440J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S National E-Asstt Centre, New Delhi. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 22/08//2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062466111(1) Dt. 12/03/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ Hereafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By The National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 270A

Vidarbha Industries Power Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, 6, Mumbai

ITA 2140/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd., Reliance Centre, Ground Floor, 19 Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 092 Pan: Aadcr1892D ..... Appellant Vs. Pcit-6, R. No. 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Santhimadam Agrofarm Trust, Kochi vs. The ACIT Central Circle 2, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 223/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

Santhimadam Agrofarm Trust, Kochi vs. The ACIT Central Circle 2, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 222/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

Santhimadam Agrofarm Trust, Kochi vs. The ACIT Central Circle 2, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 221/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

Santhimadam Agrofarm Trust, Kochi vs. The ACIT Central Circle 2, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 220/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

Danabhai Bharvad, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 844/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 28-11- 2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With Tribunal, Reads As Under:- “1. The Assessing Officer & Commissioner Appeal Have Erred In Law & In Facts, In Considering The Cash Deposit As Un-Explained Cash Deposit.

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249(4)Section 250Section 28

Trustees of Jnana Vistarak Sangh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 2627/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bhandari a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Choughule (ADDL.CIT)DR
Section 10(1)Section 10(34)Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

Vyjayanthi Mudapaka, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 557/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Advocate S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri B Naveen Kumar, DR
Section 10(1)Section 147

Sri. A. S. Srinath (HUF), Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivamogga

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 228/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeya.S. Srinath (Huf) The Income Tax Officer No. 1, Mallikarjuna Nilaya Ward 1 & Tps 1St Cross, Hosamane Jail Road Vs. No.75, 100 Feet Road Shivamogga 577201 Gopal Gowda Exten. Pan – Aamha9965J Shivamoga 577201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) Dated 09.01.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/250/2023-24/1059510032(1) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Authorities Below Is Against The Facts Of The Case & Passed On Assuming The Facts Which Are Unrealistic. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Provisions Of The Law, The Assessing Officer Erred In Estimating The Agricultural Expenditure At A Certain Percentage Of Agricultural Income Is Against The Fact, As The Increase In The Gross Receipts May Be For Various Reasons, Which Are Not Dependent On Agricultural Expenditure.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250

M/S. Labland Private Limited, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysuru

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

ITA 608/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeylabland Biotechs Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer #01, 8Th Km, Krs Road Ward - 1(1), Mysuru Vs. Metagalli, Mysuru 570016 Pan – Aaacl2892A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062548837(1) Dated 13.03.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Confirming The Assessment Of A Sum Of Rs.87,39,282/- As Income From Other Sources Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2.1 The Learned Cit[A]/Nfac Failed To Appreciate That The Income Derived By The Appellant Is From Agriculture Operations, Which Is Exempt U/S.10[1] Of The Act Read With Explanation Of Section 2[1] Of The Act & Consequently, The Learned Cit[A]/Nfac

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 250

Greens Natures Fresh Farms Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 246/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 144

Kanji Ganesh Patel HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1186/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 1186/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) Kanji Ganesh Patel Huf Vs. Ito, Ward 22(2)(1) 1905 Building No. 3 Piramal Chamber Raheja Classique Lalbaug, Parel Oshiwara, New Link Road, Mumbai-400 012. Andheri West Mumbai-400 053. Pan : Aaghk3564D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prakash G. Jhunjhunwala Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi 1. This Appeal Is Filed By Kanji Ganesh Patel Huf (Assessee/Appellant) Against Appellate Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2014 – 15 Dated 16/1/2024 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 22 (2) (1), Mumbai (The Learned Ao) Was Dismissed. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved With The Same & Has Preferred Appeal Raising Solitary Ground About Addition Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act Wherein The Exemption Under Section 10 (1) Of Agricultural Income Was Denied To The Assessee Of Rs. 2,748,802/–. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Case Shows That Assessee Is An Huf Filed Its Return Of Income On 31/7/2014 At A Total Income Of Rs. 321,608/- In The Return Of Income Assessee Has Claimed Exemption Under Section 10 Page 1 Of 5

Section 10Section 143Section 68

M/S. Mini Muthoottu Credit vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/76/2019HC Kerala25 Mar 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

Umesh Ambikaprasad Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per

ITA 4620/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

Umesh A Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per

ITA 1848/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

Prahlad Dutt Lata, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-35(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 265/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prahlad Dutt Lata Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs 35(1), Kolkata Urvashi Apartment 3, Hunger Ford Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaxpl1559J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/08/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 86 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Reason For The Said Delay Is Mainly On Account Of Old Age Of The Assessee & The Delay On The Part Of The Person Who Received The Envelope Sent From The Office Of The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Required To Be Handed Over To The Assessee. On Perusal Of The Affidavit, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 234BSection 250

Madan Mohan Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 795/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

Hansa Girish Shah, Thane vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

ITA 3303/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

Surendra Pal Singh, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1163/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10(1)Section 69A