← All Phrases

“Section 31(3)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 31Section 31(3)(a)17 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 31(3)(a) is CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (66 ITR 443), cited in 239 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 31(3)(a)

CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria
66 ITR 443 · 1967 · Supreme Court
239
citing judgments

The appellate authority cannot enhance an assessment by considering a source of income that was not examined by the Assessing Officer. The scope of appellate power is limited to the subject matter considered by the Assessing Officer.

Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction
126 Taxmann.com 132 · 2021 · Supreme Court
192
citing judgments

Once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31(1) of the IBC, claims not included in the plan are extinguished and cannot be pursued. This applies to statutory dues owed to the government and other authorities.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India
282 ITR 273 · 2006 · Supreme Court
136
citing judgments

The rule of consistency requires that in the absence of any change in material facts or law, a different view or decision on an issue cannot be adopted for subsequent assessment years, thus ensuring uniformity in tax assessments.

CIT v. Saravana Spinning Mills Ltd.
293 ITR 201 · 2007 · Supreme Court
109
citing judgments

Expenditure for replacement of machinery parts qualifies as 'current repairs' under Section 31(i) of the Income-tax Act if it does not result in a new asset or substantially enhance the existing asset's life. For Section 31(i), the critical factor is whether the expense constitutes current repairs, making the general revenue vs. capital distinction less relevant for that specific section.

Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain
31 ITR 872 · 1957 · High Court
103
citing judgments

The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' under the Income Tax Act includes instances where there is a loss of tax.

RAO SHIV BAHADUR SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH. 31
3 SCC 569 · 1994 · Reported
101
citing judgments

Stringent bail provisions under special legislations like the TADA Act are justified on the presumption that the trial will proceed without undue delay; gross delays for undertrials can invoke the right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

PCIT v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd.
409 ITR 545 · 2018 · High Court
84
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer is bound by the rule of consistency and cannot take a contrary or different stand on an issue in a subsequent assessment year if the factual position remains identical to previous years where a deduction was allowed.

Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT
186 ITR 278 · 1990 · Supreme Court
79
citing judgments

Upon amalgamation, the amalgamating company ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. Therefore, any assessment or proceeding initiated against a non-existent amalgamating company is invalid as it is no longer considered a 'person' under the Income-tax Act.

Judgments citing Section 31(3)(a)

C.N.Babu, Ramanagaram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Ramanagara

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

ITA 356/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. C. N. Babu, Vs. Ito, Prop: Hotel Chirag, Ward – 1, B. M. Road, Bidadi, Ramanagara. Ramanagaram Taluk – 562 109. Pan : Ajxpb 4497 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2018 Of Cit(A) – 3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Ground Nos.1, 11 & 12 Raised By The Assessee Are General In Nature & Does Not Require Any Adjudication. Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 46ASection 68

Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction under section 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to assess a source of income which is not disclosed either in the returns filed ... assessment order of the Income-tax Officer, with a view to finding out new sources of income and the power of enhancement under section 31(3) is restricted to the sources of income which have been the subject-matter of consideration by the Income-tax Officer from the point