← All Phrases

“Section 2(33)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(33)17 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(33) is M/s Mahadev Cold Storage v. Jurisdictional AO (43 Taxmann.com 33), cited in 262 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(33)

M/s Mahadev Cold Storage v. Jurisdictional AO
43 Taxmann.com 33 · 2014 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds are an allowable deduction if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return under section 139(1), even if the payment is made beyond the due date specified by the respective welfare fund Acts, as per the provisions of section 43B.

R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT
75 ITR 33 · 1970 · High Court
63
citing judgments

The mere absence of customer addresses, particularly for cash sales, in the books of account is not a sufficient ground to reject the books or to cast suspicion on the genuineness of the transactions.

Sohan Lal Gupta v. CIT
33 ITR 786 · 1958 · High Court
56
citing judgments

Tax authorities cannot reject an assessee's affidavit or a retraction of an admission of income without providing an opportunity to substantiate the claims or cross-examine the deponent. Simply lacking documentary evidence is not sufficient ground for outright rejection of such evidence.

D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 33 of 41 CIT(Bom) 137 ITR 58; Assam Pesticides &Agro Chemicals v. CIT(Gau)
227 ITR 846 · 1997 · High Court
33
citing judgments

Expenditure is deductible under section 37 only if it is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The mere fact that a payment is made under a contract does not conclusively establish it as a business expense.

CIT vs. Macmillan (SC) 33 ITR 182 4. Jagarnath v. CIT 2 ITC 4, CIT vs. Nawaz
22 ITR 502 · 1952 · High Court
30
citing judgments

The case establishes that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has the power to confirm, reduce, or annul the assessment or penalty, as defined under Section 251(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This power extends to all the matters which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) could have considered.

275(Delhi); Pr. CIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn Ltd.
143 Taxmann.com 135 · 2022 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Where an expense is incurred for the purpose of acquiring a capital asset, and that asset is subsequently sold, the expenditure must be considered as part of the cost of acquisition of that asset for the purpose of calculating capital gains. This is because the expense forms an integral part of the cost of acquiring the asset, not an expenditure of revenue nature.

DCIT v. Toyo Engineering India ltd.
33 Taxmann.com 560 · 2013 · Reported
22
citing judgments

Depreciation is not allowed on goodwill if it arises from book entries and has no identifiable cost of acquisition. This applies even when goodwill is acquired as part of a scheme of arrangement or amalgamation.

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 33 of 176 4.17 In Yogiraj Charity Trust v. CIT
103 ITR 777 · 1976 · Supreme Court
20
citing judgments

If the primary purpose of a trust is charitable, an ancillary object that is not itself charitable will not disqualify the trust from being considered a valid charity.

Judgments citing Section 2(33)

Krishnamurthy Thagarajan, Bangalore vs. ACIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1651/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.1651/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Krishnamurthy Thiagarajan, No.41, 36Th Main Dollar Scheme, Btm Layout, 1St Stage, Bangalore – 560 068. Pan: Aadpk-5126-C ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Acit, Circle 6(3),Mumbai, Room No.522 (5Th Floor), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Miteshkumar Gupta, Ca With Shri V.Shivkumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri P.D.Chougule, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 08/11/2012, For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. In Appeal Assessee Has Assailed Additions/Disallowances On Account Of: (I) Management Fee Paid To M/S. Bnp Paribas Investment Services India Pvt. Ltd. – Rs.1,71,028/-

For Appellant: Shri Miteshkumar Gupta, CA with Shri V.Shivkumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule, SR.DR
Section 14ASection 48

accordance with such method as may be prescribed. The method, having regard to the meaning of the expression 'prescribed' in section 2(33), must be prescribed by Rules made under the Act. What merits emphasis is that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to determine the expenditure incurred in relation