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)

DCIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Ttk Protective Devices Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2405/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2405/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ttk Protective Devices Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Vs. No. 6, Cathedral Road, New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Mahatma Chennai 600 086. Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabct1184G] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai Dated 29.06.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The First Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Under Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate
Section 10(35)Section 14A

Ramchand K. Popley, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 908/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./908/Mum/2016, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Mr. Ramchand K. Popley Dcit-13(1)(2) Mumbai. 188-A, Turner Road, Bandra (W) Vs. Mumbai-400 050. Pan:Aakpp 6952 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Arvind Kumar -Dr Assessee By: Shri Niraj Sheth-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 18/12/2015 Of The Cit (A)-21,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee,An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income On 28/09/2012,Declaring Total Income At Rs.47.50 Lakhs.The Assessing Officer (Ao) Completed The Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Act,On 13/02/2015, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.47,50,000/-.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth-ARFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar -DR
Section 10Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 36Section 94