Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.11

Section 10(2)(xv) 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(2)(xv) is Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (81 ITR 754), cited in 46 of the 90 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 10(2)(xv)

Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. CIT
81 ITR 754 · 1971 · Supreme Court
46
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for business exigency is allowable as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Litigation expenses incurred to protect business are revenue expenditure.

CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd.
20 ITR 475 · 1951 · Supreme Court
38
citing judgments

Expenditure that is incurred for the protection of a running business without generating a new asset is deductible as a business expense. Such expenditure does not result in an enduring benefit of a capital nature.

CIT v. Edward Keventer (P.) Ltd.
115 ITR 149 · 1978 · Supreme Court
28
citing judgments

When assessing expenses under Section 40A(2), tax authorities must consider the entire position judiciously from the viewpoint of a prudent businessman, not arbitrarily or capriciously. The revenue must demonstrate tax evasion and cannot disallow expenses if the recipient is taxed at the same or higher rate.

PCIT v. Zydus Wellness Ltd.
81 Taxmann.com 159 · 2017 · High Court
20
citing judgments

Trademark expenditure incurred to facilitate business operations is considered revenue expenditure, as it does not create an enduring benefit. Product registration expenditure is also revenue in nature as it enables the sale of products.

Schneider Electric (Ind.) Ltd. v. CIT (21008)
304 ITR 360 · 2008 · High Court
19
citing judgments

Commission paid to agents for services rendered is not deductible if the assessee fails to provide evidence that the agents actually procured sale orders or rendered services justifying the commission.

MSD Pharmaceuticals(P) Ltd. v. ACIT
90 Taxmann.com 357 · 2018 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Where a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal has decided an issue in favour of the assessee in its own case for other assessment years, the same principle applies to the current assessment year.

CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co.
3 SCR 38 · 1960 · Reported
13
citing judgments

Expenditure is deductible if it is incurred for the purpose of the assessee's trade and meets the tests of commercial expediency and ordinary commercial trading, unless it is for fostering another's business, a distribution of profits, wholly gratuitous, or for an improper purpose outside the course of business.

Widex India (P)Ltd. v. ACIT
88 Taxmann.com 54 · 2017 · Reported
12
citing judgments
Delhi in Schneider Electric India Ltd. v. CIT
171 Taxmann 177 · 2008 · High Court
10
citing judgments
CIT v. Century Spinning Weaving & Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
15 ITR 105 · 1947 · High Court
9
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 10(2)(xv)

Allahabad Bank Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal

CIVIL APPEAL No. 161/1952Supreme Court08 Oct 1953

Bench: The Judgment Under Appeal Income-Tax, Was Delivered. West Bengal Dissent Has Been Expressed In The Judgment Under Appeal From The Recent Decision Of The Bombay High Court In New Shorrock Spinning & 1L1 Anuf Acturing Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay('). The Facts Of That Case Are Entirely Different From The Facts Of The Case Before Us & That Decision Has No Manner Of Application To The Present Case. It Is, There- Fore, Unnecessary For Us To Discuss Or Express Any Opinion As To Whether The Observations To Be Found In The Judgment In That Case Are Or Are Not Well-Founded. For Reasons Stated Above, We Accept This Appeal & Hold That The Answer To The Question Referred By The Appellate Tribunal To The High Court Should Be In The Negative. The Respondent Company Must Pay The Costs Of The Appellant In This Court As Well As In The High Court. Appeal Allowed. Agent For The Appellant: G. H. Rajadhyaksha. Agent For The Respondent: S. C. Banerjee. Allahabad Bank Ltd. V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West Bengal. [Patanjali Sastri C.J;, S.R. Das, Vivian Bose, Ghulam Hasan & Bhagwati Jj.] Income-Tax Act (Xi Of 1922). S. 10 (2) (Xv)-Contribntion Lo Trust For Payment Of Pension To Employees-Tvhether Bitsiness Expend- Iture-Payment Of Pension & Amount Thereof Left To Discretion Of Employer-No Obligation On Tr·Nstees To Pny Pension-Validity Of Trust. (1) [1950] 18 I.T.R. 712; A.I.R. 1950 Born. 39L V. Messrs. J Eewanlal Ltd. Dasj. 1963 Oct. 8

For Appellant: G. H. RajadhyakshaFor Respondent: S. C. Banerjee
Section 66(1)