Section 10 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.11

Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is CIT v. Society of the Sisters of St. Anne (146 ITR 28), cited in 195 of the 591 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 10

CIT v. Society of the Sisters of St. Anne
146 ITR 28 · 1984 · High Court
195
citing judgments

Depreciation claimed by a charitable trust on its assets is an allowable application of income for computing exemption under Section 11, and this does not constitute a double deduction.

Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute
109 CTR 463 · 1993 · High Court
191
citing judgments

A charitable trust is allowed to claim depreciation on its assets for computing its income, even if the capital expenditure incurred on acquiring those assets was treated as an application of income in the year of acquisition.

CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. 5
288 ITR 322 · 2007 · Supreme Court
153
citing judgments

The Supreme Court affirmed that lower authorities are bound by decisions of higher authorities due to judicial discipline. It also clarified that the Commissioner, in exercising revisional power under Section 263, can conduct necessary inquiries to determine if an assessment is prejudicial to the Revenue.

Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT
338 ITR 538 · 2011 · High Court
152
citing judgments

Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, which addresses deemed dividends, does not apply to loans or advances provided by a company to its shareholders if these transactions occur in the normal course of business, are driven by business expediency, or are made in consideration of a benefit conferred upon the company by the shareholder. Conversely, gratuitous loans or advances given to shareholders fall within the purview of this section.

R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT
82 ITR 570 · 1971 · Supreme Court
131
citing judgments

Tax laws must be interpreted reasonably and in consonance with justice, even though equitable considerations are generally irrelevant in their interpretation.

CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd.
272 CTR 282 · 2014 · High Court
128
citing judgments

No disallowance under Section 14A can be made when no exempt income has been earned by the assessee, and investments made for business purposes in subsidiaries do not warrant disallowance under Section 14A, even if no dividend income is earned.

Ltd. v. DCIT
76 Taxmann.com 268 · 2016 · High Court
101
citing judgments

Where the Assessing Officer performs an elaborate analysis to determine disallowance under Section 14A, the mere absence of a specific record of dissatisfaction with the assessee's calculation does not nullify the disallowance, provided the statutory steps are followed.

CIT v. Ramkrishna Deo
35 ITR 312 · 1959 · Supreme Court
84
citing judgments

The burden of proving that a particular income is exempt from taxation, or is not taxable, lies on the assessee. To claim an exemption or a deduction, the assessee must provide proper materials to establish eligibility.

Dewanchand Builders and Contractors v. Union of India
1 SCC 101 · 2012 · Reported
82
citing judgments

The true test to determine the character of a levy is the primary object and essential purpose intended to be achieved by it.

CIT v. Raipur Pallottine Society
180 ITR 579 · 1989 · High Court
79
citing judgments

Depreciation is deductible when computing the income of a charitable trust under Section 11, and treating both depreciation and capital expenditure as an application of income for charitable purposes does not amount to a double deduction.

Judgments on Section 10

Shri Manish Ambalal Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-2(4), Vadodara

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1792/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2011-12 Shri Manish Ambalal Patel Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4) 5, Jignesh Vedashraya Bungalows Vadodara. Iscon Temple Road B/H. Mother’S School, Gotri Road Vadodara. Pan : Aokpp 6108 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-5, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 3.10.2019 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2011-12. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee, Shri Bandish Soparkar, Filed An Application Before Us Stating That He Had Instructions From The Assessee To No-Longer Represent Him. Accordingly, He Sought Withdrawal Of His Letter Of Authority Issued By The Assessee In His Name In The Present Case. The Same Was Permitted. 2 3. Further, We Have Noted That Submissions In Writing Were Filed Before The Bench On 31.5.2022, On The Basis Of Which Matter Was Proceeded To Be Heard With In The Absence Of Any Other Communication From The Assessee .

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 40A(3)

Mohamed Hanif Rasul Patel, Sangli vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(5), Sangli

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

ITA 1488/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1488/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohamed Hanif Rasul Patel, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), Sangli. Golibar Road, Near Railway Crossing, Miraj, Sangli. Pan : Abppp5778G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am : This Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolhapur Dated 02.07.2018 Emanating From The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed By Ito, Ward-1(5), Sangli, Dated 18.12.2017. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The A. O. The Assessing Authority & Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Order Of The A.O. When He Passed The Assessment Without Granting Sufficient Opportunity As Mentioned In The Appeal Order Of Cit(A) In His Common Order. The Principles Of Natural Justice Have Been Violated. The Assessment Be Quashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)