Section 10(34) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.11

Section 10(34) 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(34) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 of the 731 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 10(34)

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.
82 Taxmann.com 415 · 2017 · High Court
789
citing judgments

Disallowance computed under Section 14A, read with Rule 8D, cannot be added to book profits under Section 115JB for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes. Additionally, for Section 14A disallowance, only investments that yielded exempt income during the year are considered for calculating their average value.

HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT
383 ITR 529 · 2016 · High Court
408
citing judgments

Where an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, investments yielding exempt income are presumed to be made out of such funds, precluding disallowance of related interest expenditure under section 14A.

Vijaya Bank v. CIT
323 ITR 166 · 2010 · Supreme Court
392
citing judgments

A provision for bad and doubtful debts debited to the profit and loss account and reduced from advances on the balance sheet constitutes a write-off for deduction purposes. This is true even if individual debtor accounts are not closed.

Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT
320 ITR 577 · 2010 · Supreme Court
353
citing judgments

The case concerns the allowability of deductions for provisions made under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially those related to bad and doubtful debts. It distinguishes such deductions from the recognition of interest income on non-performing assets (NPAs).

United Commercial Bank v. CIT
240 ITR 355 · 1999 · Supreme Court
314
citing judgments

Liabilities accrued on a notional basis are allowable as deductions under the mercantile system of accounting even if their exact quantification or discharge is deferred to a future date or if the demand itself is disputed.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
341 ITR 385 · 2012 · High Court
270
citing judgments

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

CIT v. Gopal Purohit
336 ITR 287 · 2011 · High Court
254
citing judgments

The gain from delivery-based share transactions, where shares are consistently treated as investments and valued at cost in the books, is assessable as capital gains and not business income. An assessee's consistent stand on classifying share transactions should generally be followed by the assessing officer in subsequent years.

State Bank of Travancore v. CIT
158 ITR 102 · 1986 · Supreme Court
222
citing judgments

Under the mercantile system of accounting, interest income accrues and is taxable in the year it arises, even for "sticky" or doubtful loans, as the right to receive the income is paramount, not its actual receipt, provided there is an agreement for payment.

Judgments on Section 10(34)

Shri Na vs. Ari Khedut Sahkari Society Ltd, Navsarivs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Navsari, Navsari Circle

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 136/SRT/2026[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jun 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhashri Navsari Khedut Sahkari Society Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Tax, Navsari Maneklal Road, Vs. Room No.302, Income Tax Office, Navsari, Charpool, Gujarat – 396445 Navsari-396445 Pan: Aaajs0533J (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Darshit J Naik, Ca : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Respondent By : 23.04.2026 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2026 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble, J M: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A) [In Short “Cit(A)”], Jaipur Dated 23.12.2025 For The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred, In Law & On Facts, In Assessing Total Income Of Your Appellant At Rs.26,37,010/- As Against Returned Income Of Rs.Nil. 2) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts, In Disallowing The Claim Of Deduction Of Rs.26,27,414/- U/S 80P Based On Incorrect Interpretation Of Facts & Law On The Subject. 3) The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That There Was A Breach In The Principle Of Mutuality By The Appellant Co-Operative Society & Consequently, Erred In Disallowing The Deduction U/S 80P.

For Appellant: Shri Darshit J Naik, CAFor Respondent: 23.04.2026
Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)