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

M/S. Swaransathi Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 767/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Swaransathi Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd...….……...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….......Appellant 51, Nalini Seth Road 4Th Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aaqcs 8852 D] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Kolkata.……........…………………………..………….…............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & Joydeep Chakraborty, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 24/01/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & During The Previous Year It Has Raised Share Capital Amounting To Rs. 27,09,500/-. The Share Premium Was Worth Rs. 5,46,40,500/-. The Assessing Officer Made An Addition U/S 68 Of The Act, Of An Amount Of Rs.5,73,50,000/-. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer & Confirmed The Addition. Aggrieved The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us. 4. We Have Heard Rival Contentions. On Careful Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Perusal Of The Papers On Record, Orders Of The Authorities Below As Well As Case Law Cited, We Hold As Follows:-

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

DCIT(It), Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Steel Plus Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1321/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 1320 & 1321/Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle 2(1), Kolkata..............................…………………………...................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. M/S. Steel Plus Limited...................…………………………………………….................Respondent Gn-37B, Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aafcs 3982 H] Appearances By: Sk. Zafarul Haq Tanveer, Addl. Cit (Sr. Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Smt. Rituparna Sinha & Shri Anup Sinha, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 16, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12 , 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am These Two Appeals Are Preferred By The Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 15.03.2017 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) – 22, Kolkata For A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 & Since The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relating To Deletion By The Ld. Cit(A) Of The Addition Made By The A.O. On Account Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment Is Common, The Same Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By A Single Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

Section 10Section 92C

DCIT(It), Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Steel Plus Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1320/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 1320 & 1321/Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle 2(1), Kolkata..............................…………………………...................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. M/S. Steel Plus Limited...................…………………………………………….................Respondent Gn-37B, Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aafcs 3982 H] Appearances By: Sk. Zafarul Haq Tanveer, Addl. Cit (Sr. Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Smt. Rituparna Sinha & Shri Anup Sinha, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 16, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12 , 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am These Two Appeals Are Preferred By The Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 15.03.2017 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) – 22, Kolkata For A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 & Since The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relating To Deletion By The Ld. Cit(A) Of The Addition Made By The A.O. On Account Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment Is Common, The Same Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By A Single Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

Section 10Section 92C