← All Phrases

“Section 211(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 211Section 211(2)47 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 211(2) is CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal (211 ITR 293), cited in 204 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 211(2)

CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal
211 ITR 293 · 1995 · High Court
204
citing judgments

A charitable trust can carry forward its excess expenditure from previous years and adjust it against the income of subsequent years, which qualifies as an application of income under Section 11. Additionally, voluntary contributions received for a specific purpose are treated as corpus funds and are not taxable.

Alfa Laval India Ltd. v. DCIT
266 ITR 418 · 2004 · High Court
56
citing judgments

A deduction for obsolete inventory or provision for obsolete stock is permissible under Section 37(1) if justified by a certified auditor's report and valued at cost or market price/net realizable value, whichever is lower, with consistent valuation in subsequent years.

CIT v. Union Bank of India
308 CTR 797 · 2019 · High Court
41
citing judgments

For banking companies, the machinery provisions of Section 115JB(2) of the Income Tax Act are unworkable due to a legal dichotomy created by the first proviso.

Agappa Child Centre v. CIT
226 ITR 211 · 1997 · High Court
33
citing judgments

A trust's exemption is cancelled if its property is used for the benefit of a person prohibited under section 13(3), or if the trust fails to accurately reflect its income, thereby not truly disclosing the income arising from trust property.

CIT v. Alfa Laval India Ltd.
295 ITR 451 · 2007 · Supreme Court
28
citing judgments

Obsolete inventory can be written off at 10% of its cost if supported by a certified auditor's report, even if sold at a lower price in the subsequent year. Interest income earned from customers is considered business profit for Section 80HHC deductions if it's inextricably linked to the business.

CIT v. Murali Lodge
211 ITR 897 · 1995 · High Court
24
citing judgments

The intention of the purchaser to use land is not relevant to determine if it was agricultural land on the date of sale. Agricultural land is not a capital asset if it is not located within the limits of a municipality or cantonment board, but a panchayat is not considered a municipality for this purpose.

CIT v. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd.
240 ITR 256 · 1999 · High Court
19
citing judgments

An assessee can change its method of valuing closing stock if the change is bona fide and consistently followed thereafter. A change in valuation method is permissible even if it was not permissible in earlier years.

211 (Mumbai Trib) and (iii) Ashutosh Jha v. ITO
190 ITD 450 · ITAT
12
citing judgments

Section 56(2)(x) cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions entered into before its incorporation in the statute.

Judgments citing Section 211(2)