Section 10(35) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.11

Section 10(35) 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(35) is CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (326 ITR 1), cited in 543 of the 196 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 10(35)

CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.
326 ITR 1 · 2010 · Supreme Court
543
citing judgments

For attracting Section 14A disallowance, there must be a proximate cause relating the expenditure to actual tax-exempt income, and such disallowance is not automatic but requires positive material. Additionally, Section 94(7) on dividend stripping only ignores losses to the extent of dividend received for assessment years post-April 1, 2002, allowing the remaining loss.

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.

Gramaphone Co. of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey
132 Taxmann 373 · 2003 · Supreme Court
146
citing judgments
DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse
259 ITR 280 · 2003 · Supreme Court
86
citing judgments

Violation of investment mandates under Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for a charitable trust results in the complete denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act.

Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. v. DCIT
34 Taxmann.com 19 · 2013 · ITAT
64
citing judgments

A transfer pricing adjustment for corporate guarantees provided by an Indian entity to its Associated Enterprises (AEs) where no fees are charged can be estimated at approximately 0.20%. The arm's length principle applies to such intra-group corporate guarantee transactions.

CIT v. V.S. Dempo and Co. P CIT Vs. V.S. Dempo and Co. P Ltd.
206 ITR 291 · 1994 · High Court
54
citing judgments

Losses arising from the conversion of foreign currency or from foreign exchange forward contracts entered into for business transactions, such as hedging export proceeds, are considered revenue or trading losses and are deductible as business expenditure under Section 37(1). The amortization of premium paid on such foreign exchange contracts is also an allowable deduction.

Canara Bank v. JCIT
60 ITR (Trib) 1 · 2017 · ITAT
47
citing judgments

For banks, the computation of bad debt allowance under sections 36(1)(vii) or 36(1)(viia) must be restricted to only incremental advances, rejecting broader interpretations by tax authorities.

CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao
155 ITR 152 · 1985 · Supreme Court
44
citing judgments

When a partnership firm takes over the business of an earlier firm, all assets and liabilities transfer to the new firm. The deduction for bad debts is available to the assessee on the total amount written off, even if part of the debt (interest) was offered to tax in earlier years.

PCIT v. Tata Capital Ltd.
161 Taxmann.com 557 · 2024 · High Court
41
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must record their dissatisfaction with the correctness of an assessee's claim regarding expenditure in relation to exempt income, providing cogent reasons, before invoking Section 14A and Rule 8D for disallowance.

DCIT v. Gloster Jute Mills Limited
88 Taxmann.com 738 · 2017 · ITAT
39
citing judgments

Additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) can be claimed in the year an asset is acquired and installed, even if it is claimed in a subsequent year of acquisition and installation.

Judgments on Section 10(35)

ITO WD 19(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Milestone Army Navy Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4067/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.4067/Mum/2014) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Ito Ward-19(3)(3), Mumbai Vs. M/S Milestone Army Navy Trust, 602, Hallmark Business Plaza, Sant Nyaneshwar Marg, Opp. Gurunanak Hospital, Bandra East Mumbai-51 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aactm 0102 F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Chandra Vijay ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, Dated 28-3-2014, For The Assessment Year 2009-10, Wherein The Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Revenue :- (1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Income Of The Assessee Is Taxable In The Hands Of Contributors & Not In The Hands Of The Aop. (2) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Activities Of The Assessee Are Not Commercial In Nature Even Though The Assessee Has Not Carried Out Any Activity In The Spirit Of Trust. (3) The Appellant Prays That The Order Of Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored.‖

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 10(35)Section 234BSection 61