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)

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Dhfl Holding Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 985/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.985/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Dhfl Holding Pvt. Tax (Osd)-14(1)(2) Ltd. Vs. Room No.475, 4Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Hdil Tower, A.K. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashi Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai- Karve Road, Mumbai- 400051. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcd6857C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri H.N. Singh Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Mohan सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.11.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Was The Cit(A) Right In Upholding The Decision Of The Assessing Officer In Partly Confirming The Decision Of The Ao; That Is Contrary To The A.Y.2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh MohanFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh
Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 14A

Td Toll Road Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1646/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1646/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Td Toll Road Private Ltd., Dcit-15(3)(1) 361, 3Rd Floor, North Wing, Room No. 451, Reliance Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Santacruz (E), M.K Road, Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aacct6395C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Jitendra Sanghavi Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1646/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.01.2018, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-24/Dcit-15(3)(1)/It-244/2016-17, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Tribunal”) Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Jitendra SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A