Section 10(23FB) of the Income Tax Act

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
48
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
22
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
14
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
10
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
10
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
9
citing judgments
CIT v. Anupam Udyog
142 ITR 133 · 1983 · High Court
8
citing judgments
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central v. Bhupendra Chmpaklal Dalal
160 Taxmann.com 645 · 2024 · High Court
5
citing judgments
M/s. Microfirm Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
168 ITD 301 · 2018 · ITAT
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 10(23FB)

ACIT, Piramal Chambers vs. Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

ITA 194/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2018-19
Section 10Section 10(35)Section 115USection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Income Tax Officer-25.1.1, Mumbai vs. J M Financial Property Fund II, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1628/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Fenil Bhatt/Pinak Shah
Section 10

Income Tax Officer, 25.1.1, Mumbai vs. J M Financials Property Fund II, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1626/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Fenil Bhatt/Pinak Shah
Section 10

DCIT -23(1), Mumbai vs. Business Excellance Trust, Il and Fs Trust Company

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2879/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(35)Section 10(38)Section 115U

Jm Financial Property Fund I, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 25(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1691/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Aggarwal/For Respondent: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Jm Financial Property Fund I, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 25(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1689/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Aggarwal/For Respondent: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

DCIT- 23.1, Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

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

ITA 2680/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 250

DCIT-23(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2684/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Mr. Manish Sareen, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 44

Aditya Birla Private Equity Trust, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai)

Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Bleand

Section 1Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

M/S. Brio Bliss Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 1 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 3067/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3067/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 10Section 56(2)(viib)

ACIT, Circle-7(2), New Delhi vs. Drishti Soft Solutiions Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8523/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usacit Vs. Drishti Soft Solutions Pvt. Circle – 7(2), Ltd., F-2, 40 Feet Road, New Delhi Ganga Vihar, Gokulpur, New Delhi – 110 094 Pan No. Aabcd 9373 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Shri Rishabh Malhotra, A.R. Revenue By Shri T. James Singson, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.09.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

Uti Assest Managmeent Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5829/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. J.D. Mistry / Sh. Ninad Patade, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vranda U Matkarni, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Rvcf Trust-II, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 198/JPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 166Section 199Section 2(15)

Bigfoot Retail Solution Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 5(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3161/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajinder Jha, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

Asst CIT 23 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S Aditya Birla Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7504/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2021AY 2016-17
Section 10Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 1O(35)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai vs. Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2013-

ITA 1144/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar (CIT-DR)
Section 10Section 115USection 143Section 199

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S True North Fund Iiia, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 486/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manish Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 2Section 47

Jm Financial India Fund-Scheme B, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 277/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhjm Financial India Fund-Scheme Ito - 17(2)(1) Room No. 123-B, 1St Floor, B, 141, Maker Chambers Iii, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aabtj0401F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Poddar (CIT-DR) with Shri Nishant Samaiya (Sr. DR)
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 161(1)Section 1OSection 234BSection 254(1)Section 2fSection 4

M/S. Microfinish Pumps Private Limited, Hubli vs. ACIT-Circle-2(1), Hubli

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

ITA 801/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Microfinish Pumps Private Limited, The Assistant Special Plot, Industrial Commissioner Of Estate, Vs. Income Tax, Gokul Road, Circle – 2 (1), Hubli – 580 030. Hubli. Pan: Aabcm5152B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravishankar S.V, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 195(2)Section 40Section 90(2)

Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-25, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2509/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K Pradhanmilestone Real Estate Fund 402–A, Hallmark Business Plaza Sant Dhyaneshwar Marg ……………. Appellant Bandra, Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaati5880L V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–25(3), Mumbai Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel A/W Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By : Shri Anand Mohan

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 10Section 115USection 263