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

T.P. Roy Chowdhury & Company Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2402/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2402/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 T P Roy Chowdhury & Company Pvt. Ltd…....…………………....Appellant 53/B, 1St Floor, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kol-16. [Pan: Aaact9370R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata…..………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 29, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24.04.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 30.10.2017, Declaring A Total Income At Rs. 6,19,94,350/-. The Assessing Officer Found From The Tax Audit Report That The Assessee Has Paid Employees Contribution Of Rs.8,81,926/- Towards Pf & Towards Esi For Rs.1,12,067/- After The Due Date So The Delayed Deposit Of Pf Is Treated As Income Of Assessee As Per Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Read With Section Of 2(24)(X) & A

Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1381/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Before Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1380 & 1381/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2017-18 Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.113, Janpriya Crest, Tax, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai- 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca3012H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Vinitha, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Arv Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company Directed Against The Orders Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act-1961 Dated 30.03.2025 & 31.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Two Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Ms.Vinitha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 13Section 143(3)Section 31Section 7

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1380/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Before Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1380 & 1381/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2017-18 Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.113, Janpriya Crest, Tax, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai- 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca3012H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Vinitha, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Arv Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company Directed Against The Orders Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act-1961 Dated 30.03.2025 & 31.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Two Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Ms.Vinitha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 13Section 143(3)Section 31Section 7

Raghavendra Ramakrishna Naik, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2027/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Raghavendra Ramakrishna Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Naik 3(3)(1), Mumbai Raghavendra Ramakrishna Room No. 626, 6Th Floor, Naik D-1, Flat No. 7, Navyouak Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Society, Bhandup East, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai 400042 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051 Pan: (Afapn9077M) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Ms. Manisha Thakkar, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Ito (Intl. Tax) Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai-3 Vide Order No. Itba/Com/F/17/2024-25/1072645237(1) Dated 28.01.2025 Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 02.12.2024 For Ay 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Applicant States That The Learned Income Tax Officer Has Erred In Passing The Order Which Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Against The Principle Laid

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha Thakkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)