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)

Eastern India Educational Institution, Kolkata vs. ITO, (Exemption)-II, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Dec 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.654/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Eastern India Educational Vs. The Income Tax Officer Institution, (Exemption)-Ii, 10B, Birla Building, 4Th Floor, Middleton Row, 5Th Floor, 9/1, R.N.Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700071 Kolkata-700071 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaate 0448 G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.S.Damle, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 07/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2011-2012, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata, Dated 29.3.2016, U/S.263 Of The I.T.Act. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Ay. 2011-12 Was Completed An 18.03.2014 Determining The Total Income At Rs. 20,35,850/- . On Further Verification Of Records, It Has Been Found That Dividend Income At Rs.3,21,19,822/- Was Earned By The Assessee & Claimed Exempt U/S. 10(34) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. As Per Provisions Of Section 14A Of The I.T.Act, 1961, Expenditure Incurred In Relation To Income Which Do Not Form Part Of Total Income Requires To Be Disallowed In Accordance With The Provisions Of Rule 8D Of The I. T. Rules, 1962. The Computation Of Such Disallowance Was Made In The Assessment Order, Which Was Determined

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 263

Manjula Naraynan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1524/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1524/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Smt. Manjula Naraynan , The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 12, Old No. 71, 3Rd Main Vs. Income Tax , Road, Kasturibai Nagar, Adyar, Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai 600 020. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aakpn7776J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Palanichamy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai Dated 21.03.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Has Raised Two Grounds, Viz., Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Expenditure Under Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] R.W. Rule 8D Of It Rules & Confirmation Of Levy Of Interest Under Section 234B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri M. Palanichamy, JCIT
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 234B