← All Phrases

“Section 22(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 22Section 22(4)32 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 22(4) is Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (266 ITR 99), cited in 181 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 22(4)

Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT
266 ITR 99 · 2004 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

The Revenue cannot take a conflicting stand from what it had earlier accepted in a previous assessment year without compelling justification. This principle of consistency applies to various issues, including the treatment of customs duty in closing inventory.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT
244 ITR 734 · 2000 · High Court
168
citing judgments

The Revenue is bound by the rule of consistency and cannot adopt a divergent position in a subsequent assessment year unless there is a change in facts or law.

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO
315 ITR 255 · 2009 · High Court
112
citing judgments

Interest earned from the temporary parking of borrowed funds specifically intended for project development, prior to the commencement of business, constitutes a capital receipt inextricably linked to the project and is not taxable as 'income from other sources'.

Miss P. Sarada v. CIT
229 ITR 444 · 1998 · Supreme Court
64
citing judgments

A loan or advance from a closely held company to a shareholder is a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) upon receipt, unaffected by subsequent repayment or adjustment.

CEPT v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd.
20 ITR 451 · 1951 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

Income derived from leasing a business asset is considered business income under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Bihar Institute of Mining & Mine Surveying v. CIT
208 ITR 608 · 1994 · High Court
57
citing judgments

An entity qualifies as an 'educational institution' under Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act only if it is primarily engaged in imparting education, rather than merely assisting educational bodies or providing scholarships and grants. The focus must be on active educational activities.

Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT
323 ITR 104 · 2010 · High Court
44
citing judgments

The annual value of a self-occupied property, for both wealth tax and income tax purposes, is the reasonable rent expected from a hypothetical tenant. When using municipal ratable value, statutory deductions permissible under municipal law must be added back to arrive at this expected rent.

P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra
6 SCC 537 · 2005 · Reported
44
citing judgments

Establishing and administering educational institutions is not considered a commercial activity, and education is viewed as charity or philanthropy, especially when fees are regulated. However, if institutions collect money beyond prescribed fees, it constitutes capitation fees, leading to legal consequences.

Judgments citing Section 22(4)

Shri Bhanwarlal M. Harsh, Thane vs. Dy CIT CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 538/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Bhanwarlal M Shah Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) A/2, 406, Runwal Plaza, Air India Building Nr. Koresh India Vartak Nariman Point, Nagar, Thane (West) Mumbai - 400021 400606 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacph5666F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Manoj MundraFor Respondent: J. Saravanan
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice.  have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Have concealed

ACIT Central Circle 2 (3), Chennai vs. M/S Sbq Steels Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 579/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 22(4)Section 33(1)Section 54

National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Order dated 29.12.2017 in CP/665/IB/2017. Thereafter, the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC') had filed an application in terms of section 22(4) of the Code proposing the appointment of Resolution Professional ('RP’) who was not the IRP and thereby the NCLT had appointed Mr.Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi

ACIT Central Circle 2 (3), Chennai vs. M/S Sbq Steels Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 578/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 22(4)Section 33(1)Section 54

National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Order dated 29.12.2017 in CP/665/IB/2017. Thereafter, the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC') had filed an application in terms of section 22(4) of the Code proposing the appointment of Resolution Professional ('RP’) who was not the IRP and thereby the NCLT had appointed Mr.Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi

ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Sbq Steels Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 303/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 22(4)Section 33(1)Section 54

National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Order dated 29.12.2017 in CP/665/IB/2017. Thereafter, the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC') had filed an application in terms of section 22(4) of the Code proposing the appointment of Resolution Professional ('RP’) who was not the IRP and thereby the NCLT had appointed Mr.Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi

ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Sbq Steels Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 302/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 22(4)Section 33(1)Section 54

National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Order dated 29.12.2017 in CP/665/IB/2017. Thereafter, the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC') had filed an application in terms of section 22(4) of the Code proposing the appointment of Resolution Professional ('RP’) who was not the IRP and thereby the NCLT had appointed Mr.Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi

ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Sbq Steels Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 301/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 22(4)Section 33(1)Section 54

National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Order dated 29.12.2017 in CP/665/IB/2017. Thereafter, the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC') had filed an application in terms of section 22(4) of the Code proposing the appointment of Resolution Professional ('RP’) who was not the IRP and thereby the NCLT had appointed Mr.Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi

ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Sbq Steels Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 300/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 22(4)Section 33(1)Section 54

National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Order dated 29.12.2017 in CP/665/IB/2017. Thereafter, the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC') had filed an application in terms of section 22(4) of the Code proposing the appointment of Resolution Professional ('RP’) who was not the IRP and thereby the NCLT had appointed Mr.Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi

Hitesh Construction P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circal-06, New Delhi

ITA 5109/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Burnwal, Senior DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessment Year 2008-09 it appears to me that you:- • Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or under Section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated ………….. • Have concealed

Hitesh Construction P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circal-06, New Delhi

ITA 5108/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Burnwal, Senior DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessment Year 2008-09 it appears to me that you:- • Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or under Section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated ………….. • Have concealed

Hitesh Construction P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circal-06, New Delhi

ITA 5107/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Burnwal, Senior DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessment Year 2008-09 it appears to me that you:- • Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or under Section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated ………….. • Have concealed

Hitesh Construction P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circal-06, New Delhi

ITA 5106/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Burnwal, Senior DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessment Year 2008-09 it appears to me that you:- • Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or under Section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated ………….. • Have concealed

Hitesh Construction P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circal-06, New Delhi

ITA 5105/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Burnwal, Senior DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessment Year 2008-09 it appears to me that you:- • Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or under Section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated ………….. • Have concealed