← All Phrases

“Section 34(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 34Section 34(1)355 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 34(1) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 34(1)

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.
82 Taxmann.com 415 · 2017 · High Court
789
citing judgments

Disallowance computed under Section 14A, read with Rule 8D, cannot be added to book profits under Section 115JB for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes. Additionally, for Section 14A disallowance, only investments that yielded exempt income during the year are considered for calculating their average value.

CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd.
323 ITR 518 · 2010 · High Court
470
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A, for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income, is not permissible when the assessee has not earned any exempt income, such as dividend income under Section 10(34), during the year under consideration.

HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT
383 ITR 529 · 2016 · High Court
408
citing judgments

Where an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, investments yielding exempt income are presumed to be made out of such funds, precluding disallowance of related interest expenditure under section 14A.

Vijaya Bank v. CIT
323 ITR 166 · 2010 · Supreme Court
392
citing judgments

A provision for bad and doubtful debts debited to the profit and loss account and reduced from advances on the balance sheet constitutes a write-off for deduction purposes. This is true even if individual debtor accounts are not closed.

Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT
320 ITR 577 · 2010 · Supreme Court
353
citing judgments

The case concerns the allowability of deductions for provisions made under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially those related to bad and doubtful debts. It distinguishes such deductions from the recognition of interest income on non-performing assets (NPAs).

United Commercial Bank v. CIT
240 ITR 355 · 1999 · Supreme Court
314
citing judgments

Liabilities accrued on a notional basis are allowable as deductions under the mercantile system of accounting even if their exact quantification or discharge is deferred to a future date or if the demand itself is disputed.

Judgments citing Section 34(1)

ITO -Intl Tax Circle 3(3) (2), Mumbai vs. Rahul Rajnikant Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 426/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

Court in Johri Lal (HUF) v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 439, 441 : Assessment Year: 2004-05 Page 3 of 8 "Before proceedings under section 34(1)(a) could be validly initiated, the Income-tax Officer must have reasons to believe that by reason of the omission or failure ... Income-tax Officer is a condition precedent. Without formation of such an opinion he will not have jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 34(1)(a). The fulfilment of this condition is not a mere formality but it is mandatory. The failure to fulfil that condition would vitiate the entire

Rahul Rajnikant Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Intl Tax Circle 3(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

Court in Johri Lal (HUF) v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 439, 441 : Assessment Year: 2003-04 Page 3 of 8 "Before proceedings under section 34(1)(a) could be validly initiated, the Income-tax Officer must have reasons to believe that by reason of the omission or failure ... Income-tax Officer is a condition precedent. Without formation of such an opinion he will not have jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 34(1)(a). The fulfilment of this condition is not a mere formality but it is mandatory. The failure to fulfil that condition would vitiate the entire

Kalpesh Ramniklal Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO Intl Tax Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 424/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

Court in Johri Lal (HUF) v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 439, 441 : Assessment Year: 2004-05 Page 3 of 8 "Before proceedings under section 34(1)(a) could be validly initiated, the Income-tax Officer must have reasons to believe that by reason of the omission or failure ... Income-tax Officer is a condition precedent. Without formation of such an opinion he will not have jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 34(1)(a). The fulfilment of this condition is not a mere formality but it is mandatory. The failure to fulfil that condition would vitiate the entire

Kalpesh Rashmikant Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO It, Circle- 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

Court in Johri Lal (HUF) v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 439, 441 : Assessment Year: 2003-04 Page 3 of 8 "Before proceedings under section 34(1)(a) could be validly initiated, the Income-tax Officer must have reasons to believe that by reason of the omission or failure ... Income-tax Officer is a condition precedent. Without formation of such an opinion he will not have jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 34(1)(a). The fulfilment of this condition is not a mere formality but it is mandatory. The failure to fulfil that condition would vitiate the entire

Hindustan Construction Company, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-6, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 969/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri H. P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)

section 22, the previous underassessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceedings start afresh. When once valid proceedings are started under section 34(1)(b), the Income-tax Officer had not only the jurisdiction, but it was his duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped

M/S. Biocon Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1858/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 147Section 250Section 35

combined review of the decisions of this Court the following tests and principles would apply to determine the applicability of Section 34(1)(b) to the following categories of cases: "(1) Where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived from relevant judicial decisions ... original assessment without any fresh facts or materials or without any enquiry into the materials which form part of the original assessment, Section 34(1)(b) would have no application." (Underlines supplied) 14. In the case of M/s. Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society (supra), one of the issues which arose

M/S. Ravi Foundation, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 884/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Arati AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)

section 22, the previous underassessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceedings start afresh. When once valid proceedings are started under section 34(1)(b), the Income-tax Officer had not only the jurisdiction, but it was his duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped

M/S Poddar Finin Consultancy P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1860/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 35DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

came to know that the assessee was carrying on business at Bombay. He, therefore, after obtaining the necessary sanction, affixed, a notice under section 34(1)(a) read with section 22(2) of the 1922 Act at the premises, where, according to the information received by the ITO, the assessee

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 465/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

combined review of the decisions of this Court the following tests and principles would apply to determine the applicability of section 34(1)(b) to the following categories of cases: "(1) Where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived from relevant judicial decisions ... original assessment without any fresh facts or materials or without any enquiry into the materials which form part of the original assessment, section 34(1)(b) would have no application.' (emphasis supplied) ITA Nos.464 to 465/Bang/2020 Page 8 of 45 14. In the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 464/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

combined review of the decisions of this Court the following tests and principles would apply to determine the applicability of section 34(1)(b) to the following categories of cases: "(1) Where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived from relevant judicial decisions ... original assessment without any fresh facts or materials or without any enquiry into the materials which form part of the original assessment, section 34(1)(b) would have no application.' (emphasis supplied) ITA Nos.464 to 465/Bang/2020 Page 8 of 45 14. In the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society

Mr.M J Aravind, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 222/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 48Section 57

combined review of the decisions of this Court the following tests and principles would apply to determine the applicability of section 34(1)(b) to the following categories of cases: "(1) Where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived from relevant judicial decisions ... fresh facts or materials or without any enquiry into the materials which Page 15 of 24 form part of the original assessment, section 34(1)(b) would have no application.' (emphasis supplied) 14. In the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society (supra), one of the issues which arose

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. N G Balu Reddy HUF, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 651/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chetan R, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Visisth Chay Vyapar Ltd

ITA - 1109 / 2010HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

other evidence from which material facts could with due diligence have been discovered does not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of Section 34(1), but where on the evidence and the materials produced the Income-tax Officer could have reached a conclusion other than one which ... reached, a proceeding under Section 34(1)(a) will not lie merely on the ground that the Income-tax Officer has raised an inference which he may later regard as erroneous.” 30. The above decisions were followed in ITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 1

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vishsht Chay Vyapar Ltd

ITA - 1108 / 2010HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

other evidence from which material facts could with due diligence have been discovered does not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of Section 34(1), but where on the evidence and the materials produced the Income-tax Officer could have reached a conclusion other than one which ... reached, a proceeding under Section 34(1)(a) will not lie merely on the ground that the Income-tax Officer has raised an inference which he may later regard as erroneous.” 30. The above decisions were followed in ITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 1

Dabur India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA - 1107 / 2007HC Delhi01 Sept 2008
For Respondent: Mr R. D.Jolly
Section 260ASection 34(1)Section 80

that the said decision of the Apex Court pertains to A.Y. 1974-75 and since then the law has changed by omission of section 34(1). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to recomputed deduction ... that the said decision of the Apex Court pertains to A.Y. 1974-75 and since then the law has changed by omission of Section 34(1).” 2. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment allowed the Appeal of the Revenue in respect of the afore-mentioned grounds by relying