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)

State Bank of India, Dehradun vs. ITO (TDS), Dehradun

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

ITA 5018/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Through Video Conferencing At New Delhi] [Assessment Year : 2012-13] State Bank Of India, Vs Ito (Tds), 1-New Cantt. Road, Dehradun. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan-Aaacs8577K Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Smt. Mayank Prabha Tomar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012- 13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Dehradun Dated 10.05.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Provisions Of The Law, The Ld Cit(A) Has Passed The Order Contrary To The Direction Of Hon’Ble Itat Delhi Vide Its Order Dated 07/11/2017. Therefore, The Said Order Of Ld Cit (A) Being Without His Jurisdiction & Authority Is Liable To Be Quashed & The Matter Needs To Be Set Aside To The Ld Ao As Per Said Order Of Hon’Ble Itat Delhi. 2. That Without Prejudice To Ground No 1 Above & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Provisions Of The Law, The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Exemption U/S 10(5) In Respect Of Reimbursement Of Leave Travel Concession Involving Foreign Leg Through Circuitous Route As Long As The Employees Designated Place Is In India For His Leave Travel Concession & He Actually Visits The Place As Designated.

Section 10(5)

State Bank of India, Belgaum vs. ITO, (TDS), Belgaum

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 34/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 32 To 34/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 State Bank Of India Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Regional Branch Office Belgaum Goaves, Hindwadi Belgaum – 590 011 [Aaacs8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. D/R Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2022 Order Per Bench: These Captioned Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Belagavi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)] Even Dt. 08/11/2017, For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Challenging The Non-Compliance Of Provisions U/S 201(1)/(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter “The Act’]. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Appellant/Assessee State Bank Of India, Regional Business Office Is A Banking Company Engaged In The Business Of Banking. A Survey U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted At The Bank Premises To Verify Compliance With Tds/Tcs Provisions. The Ito Held That The Assessee Has Failed To Deduct Tax At Source On The Reimbursement Made Against Foreign Ltc To The Officers Of The Bank & Accordingly He Applied The Provisions Of Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act Treating The Assessee In Default U/S 201(1) & Charged Interest U/S 201(1A) Of The Act. In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2.1. Aggrieved The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Confirmed The Finding Of The Ao By Observing As Under:-

Section 10(5)Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

State Bank of India, Belgaum vs. ITO, (TDS), Belgaum

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 33/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 32 To 34/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 State Bank Of India Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Regional Branch Office Belgaum Goaves, Hindwadi Belgaum – 590 011 [Aaacs8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. D/R Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2022 Order Per Bench: These Captioned Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Belagavi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)] Even Dt. 08/11/2017, For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Challenging The Non-Compliance Of Provisions U/S 201(1)/(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter “The Act’]. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Appellant/Assessee State Bank Of India, Regional Business Office Is A Banking Company Engaged In The Business Of Banking. A Survey U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted At The Bank Premises To Verify Compliance With Tds/Tcs Provisions. The Ito Held That The Assessee Has Failed To Deduct Tax At Source On The Reimbursement Made Against Foreign Ltc To The Officers Of The Bank & Accordingly He Applied The Provisions Of Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act Treating The Assessee In Default U/S 201(1) & Charged Interest U/S 201(1A) Of The Act. In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2.1. Aggrieved The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Confirmed The Finding Of The Ao By Observing As Under:-

Section 10(5)Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)