Which cases are most cited on Section 10(23FB)?

Pandit Bros. v. CIT (26 ITR 159) — 48 citing judgments; ITO v. Gujarat Information Technology Fund (45 SOT 529) — 22 citing judgments; Narayandas Kedarnath v. CIT (22 ITR 18) — 14 citing judgments; G.V.K. Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (49 Taxmann.com 385) — 10 citing judgments; Milestone Real Estate Fund v. ACIT, Mumbai (97 Taxmann.com 141) — 10 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 10(23FB)?

BharatTax indexes 60 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 10(23FB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 10(23FB) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 10(23FB) of the Income Tax Act?

Pandit Bros. v. CIT (26 ITR 159) is the decision most relied on for Section 10(23FB), cited in 48 judgments. Low profits alone, or minor defects such as the non-maintenance of a stock register, do not justify the rejection of regularly maintained books of account under Section 145, nor do they permit additions to income without proving specific errors.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.11

Section 10(23FB) 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(23FB) is Pandit Bros. v. CIT (26 ITR 159), cited in 48 of the 60 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 10(23FB)

Pandit Bros. v. CIT

26 ITR 159 · 1954 · High Court

citing judgments

Low profits alone, or minor defects such as the non-maintenance of a stock register, do not justify the rejection of regularly maintained books of account under Section 145, nor do they permit additions to income without proving specific errors.

ITO v. Gujarat Information Technology Fund

45 SOT 529 · 2011 · ITAT

citing judgments

Income tax authorities cannot disallow a claim for exemption under section 10(23FB) solely by alleging violations of SEBI regulations without any action or allegation from SEBI itself.

Narayandas Kedarnath v. CIT

22 ITR 18 · 1952 · High Court

citing judgments

Amounts contributed by partners as capital to a firm cannot be treated as a "credit" to be explained under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act if the department is satisfied they are indeed partner contributions and not undisclosed profits of the firm.

G.V.K. Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

49 Taxmann.com 385 · 2014 · Reported

citing judgments

A Principal Commissioner cannot deny a claim for exemption under section 10(23FB) solely based on allegations that do not substantiate the denial.

Milestone Real Estate Fund v. ACIT, Mumbai

97 Taxmann.com 141 · 2018 · Reported

citing judgments

5 SOT 616); Arvind Murjani Brands (P.) Ltd. vs. I SOT 616); Arvind Murjani Brands (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

137 ITD 173 · 2012 · ITAT

citing judgments

CIT v. Anupam Udyog

142 ITR 133 · 1983 · High Court

citing judgments

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central v. Bhupendra Chmpaklal Dalal

160 Taxmann.com 645 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

M/s. Microfirm Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

168 ITD 301 · 2018 · ITAT

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 10(23FB)

Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Private Equity Sunrise Fund, Mumbai

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

ITA 4742/MUM/2026[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2026

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 10Section 148Section 2(31)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Sundaram Alternative Opp Series- High Yield Secured Debt Fund, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of revenue for AYs 2020-21 and 2022-23

ITA 3533/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3532 /Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2020-21 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3533 /Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Sarda, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Pavuna Sundar.E, CIT

Section 10Section 115USection 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Sundaram Alternative Opp Series High Yield Secured Debt Fund, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of revenue for AYs 2020-21 and 2022-23

ITA 3532/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Sarda, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Pavuna Sundar.E, CIT

Section 10Section 115USection 250

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Salem vs. Selva Stone Export Private Limited, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2018-19 is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2051/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2049, 2050 & 2051/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Selva Stone Export Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No.27-A, Jagadevi Road, Central Circle, Chennai Bye Pass, Salem Krishnagiri – 635 104. Pan: Aarcs 7703E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Viswanathan, CA

Section 133ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 148

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Salem vs. Selva Stone Export Private Limited, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2018-19 is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2050/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Viswanathan, CA

Section 133ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 148

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Salem vs. Selva Stone Export Private Limited, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2018-19 is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2049/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Viswanathan, CA

Section 133ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 148

Lichfl Fund, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 5715/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10Section 10(35)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 90

Lichfl Fund, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 5677/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10Section 10(35)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 90

Lichfl Fund, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 5676/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10Section 10(35)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 90

Vidya Online Private Limited, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(5), Pune

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

ITA 804/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.804/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri D.S. RahurkarFor Respondent: Smt.Sailee Dhole

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

Kae Capital Fund, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3752/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailkae Capital Fund, 74Ab, Jolly Maker Chambers Ii, Vinay Shah Marg, Mumbai – 400021 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabtk9875E V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward – 25(1)(1)., ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(35)Section 115USection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. R B Farms and Estates Pvt. Ltd

Appeals are disposed of

ITA/129/2024HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

Section 132Section 153ASection 260ASection 68

Ranee Narah, Guwahati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

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

ITA 84/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 68Section 69

Mr. Mahendra Mohiniraj Gandhe, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/PUN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.413/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr.Mahendra Mohiniraj V The Assistant Gandhe, S Commissioner Of Income 270/31, Manisha Banglow, Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Professor Colony, Ahmednagar. Savedi Road, Ahmednagar – 414003. Pan: Aaypg 2983J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Pune Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 21.01.2020 For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68