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

The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Hyderabad vs. M/S. S. R. V. G. Press Company, Kurnool

CIVIL APPEAL No. 270/1960Supreme Court10 Mar 1961

Bench: Tho Act Came Into Dafeda-;;Iranjan Force. Singh & Another Nor Do We Find Any Force In The Argument Of Learned V. Counsel For The State That Under S. 27 Of The Act, The Custodian, Custodian-General May At Any Time Revise The Order Evacuee Property Of Any Custodian And, Therefore, The Custodian-Gene' (Pb.) 6- Anoth" 1 · 'Th T L' 'T F T' D Ra Can Revise W1 Ou Any Im1 O Ime Any Or Er Subba Rao J. Made By Any Custodian Under Any Previous Law. Sec- Tion 27 Of The Act Can Be Given Retrospective Opera- Tion Only To The Extent Permitted By S. 58(3) Of The Act. We Have Held Thats. 58(3) Does Not Affect The Pre- Vious Operation Of The Jaw & Therefore Cannot Affect The Finality Of The Orders Made Under The Ordinance. So The Words In The Section "Any Time" Or "Any Custo- Dian" Must Necessarily Be Confined Only To Orders Of Any One Of The Custodians Defined In The Act & To Orders Of Custodians Deemed To Have Been Made Under The Act But Had Not Become Final Before The Act Came Into Force. Marek Zo. No Other Point Was Raised. In The Result, The Order Of The Custodian-General Is Set Aside & That Of The Custodian Dated June 6, 1949, Is Restored. The Res- Pondents Will Pay The Costs To The Appellants. Appeal Allowed. The Commissioner Of Excess Profits Tax, Hyderabad V. M/S. S. R. V. G. Press Company, Kurnool (J. L. Kapur & J. C. Brah, Jj.) Excess Profits Tax-Sales Tax-Provisional Payment In Advance, If Permissible Deduction-Excess Profits Tax Act, R940 (Xv Of R940), R. I2, Sch. I. ,1 • • The Respondents Were Entitled To A Rebate Of Sales Tax On '. Goods Purchased By Them & Used,In Their Manufacturing Process. They Had Adopted The System Which Was Permissible Under Law