Section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.11

Section 10(5) 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(5) is DIT (E) v. Apparel Export Promotion Council (245 ITR 492), cited in 193 of the 285 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 10(5)

DIT (E) v. Apparel Export Promotion Council
245 ITR 492 · 2000 · High Court
193
citing judgments

The rule of consistency applies when facts or legal positions remain unchanged in earlier assessment years, preventing the Revenue from adopting a divergent stance in subsequent years without new material. This ensures stability and predictability in tax assessments.

254 ITR 121 (Guj) ITO v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd.
243 ITR 435 · 2000 · High Court
173
citing judgments
247 ITR 305 (Guj) CIT v. Nestle India Ltd.
140 ITR 832 · 1983 · High Court
172
citing judgments

An employer is not in default under section 201 if they have made a bona fide estimate of employee income and deducted tax at source based on that estimate.

CIT vs. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd (2008) 299 ITR 0356 (BOMBAY); CIT v. Semiconductor Complex Ltd.
282 ITR 263 · 2006 · High Court
159
citing judgments

An employer making a bona fide estimate of taxable salary income is acting in accordance with established legal precedent.

CIT v. ITI Ltd.
313 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court
142
citing judgments

An employer is not statutorily obligated to collect evidence from employees regarding the actual utilization of amounts paid towards leave travel concession or conveyance allowance, unless specific requirements are mandated by law or a CBDT circular.

State Bank of India v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
144 Taxmann.com 131 · 2022 · Supreme Court
35
citing judgments

An assessee is required to deduct tax at source on reimbursements, even if the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that such reimbursements were exempt.

CIT v. Alstom Projects India Ltd.
394 ITR 141 · 2017 · High Court
18
citing judgments

The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) lacks jurisdiction to propose adjustments on transactions with unrelated third parties, as Chapter X provisions apply only to specified domestic transactions.

(para 6). (b) Hero MotoCorp Ltd. v. Additional CIT, Range-12, New Delhi
156 TTJ 139 · 2013 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Payments for sponsorship rights, such as title sponsorship or being an "Official Partner" of an event, are not considered royalty income for the use of trademarks or brand names under Section 9(1)(vi). Consequently, withholding tax obligations under Section 195 may not apply to such payments.

India Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income of India v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS
123 Taxmann.com 447 · 2021 · Reported
13
citing judgments

An assessee cannot be held in default for non-deduction of TDS if they held a bona fide belief that tax was not deductible on certain reimbursements, especially when the issue concerns LFC reimbursements to employees.

Lifestyle International (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
141 Taxmann.com 559 · 2022 · Reported
12
citing judgments

Orders passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act are only applicable for financial year 2014-15 onwards and not for any prior financial year, as they are time-barred. Consequently, proceedings flowing from invalid orders are annulled.

Judgments on Section 10(5)

Raj Kishore Prasad, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3, Valsad

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

ITA 1689/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O. P. Meena, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1689/Ahd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Raj Kishore Prasad Ito, Ward-3 F-8, Ayodhyanagar Soc., Valsad. Vs. Opp. Sahjivan Soc., Shantinagar, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-380013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aitpp0535A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Divyang Shah Revenue By: Shri Mayank Pandey (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/10/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.02.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-, Valsad [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 2. “1 On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred In Adding Leave Travel Concession Of Rs.2,10,518/- By Not Allowing Exemption Under Section 10(5) Of The Act. 2. On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Assessing Officer Has Also Erred In Not Allowing The Tds Credit Deposited

For Appellant: Shri Divyang ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Pandey (DR)
Section 10(5)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234B