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)

Protech Exim (India) P Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1089/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1089/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Protech Exim (India) Pvt. बिधम/ Acit, Cpc Ltd. Bangaluru. Vs. C/O G. P. Mehta & Co. Cas, 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp3317N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G. P. Mehta Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 16.03.2023 For Ay. 2019-20. 2. The Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature. 3. The Ground No. 2 Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Denying Set-Off Of Business Loss Of Rs.38,487/- Against Other Head Of Income For The Same Assessment Year. 4. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 On 21.10.2019 Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs.5,83,870/.- The Return Was Processed By Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.15,87,350/- By Making Disallowance Of Rs.10,03,480/- Out Of Which, Ground No. 2 Emanates I.E. Disallowance Of Rs.38,481/- Which Action Of Cpc Has Been Confirmed By Ld.

For Appellant: Shri G. P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 71

Mumbai Sez Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

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

ITA 7022/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7022/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Mumbai Sez Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-39 1St Floor, Jai Centre, 34, Mumbai Vs. P.D. Mello Road, Opp. Red Gate, Masjid, Mumbai- 400009. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcg2739C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By: Shri A. K. Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.03.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.11,26,507/- Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Ita. No.7022/Mum/2013 A.Y. 2007-08 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.41,02,40,470/- Claimed Under Section 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Each One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal Is Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Kardam (DR)
Section 10(35)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263Section 57