← All Phrases

“Section 52(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 52Section 52(2)73 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 52(2) is India Cements Ltd. v. CIT (60 ITR 52), cited in 247 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 52(2)

India Cements Ltd. v. CIT
60 ITR 52 · 1966 · Supreme Court
247
citing judgments

Expenses incurred for obtaining a loan for the purpose of the assessee's business, such as debenture discount, bank guarantee charges, and stamp duty, are considered revenue expenditure. These liabilities, though potentially spread over time, are deductible as revenue expenses.

CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd.
159 ITR 71 · 1986 · Supreme Court
133
citing judgments

The burden of proving an understatement of consideration or the receipt of 'on-money' lies solely with the Revenue, which must provide cogent evidence of actual receipt of higher consideration, beyond mere estimates or suspicion. Additions cannot be made based on assumptions like differences from circle rates without such evidence.

Man Mohan Sadani v. CIT
304 ITR 52 · 2008 · High Court
132
citing judgments

When assessing income from undisclosed or unrecorded sales, the entire sale proceeds cannot be added to the assessee's income; instead, only the net profit embedded in such unaccounted sales, determined by applying the assessee's net profit rate, should be taxed.

DCIT v. Rajeev G. Kalathil
67 SOT 52 · 2015 · ITAT
101
citing judgments

Where purchases are accepted as genuine and a deduction allowed, the corresponding liability cannot be added under Section 68. The case also provides authority on the application of Section 69C when suppliers are non-genuine but the purchases themselves are not doubted.

February 16, 2010, CIT v. Shakuntala Devi
294 ITR 143 · 2007 · High Court
43
citing judgments

A Departmental Valuation Officer's (DVO) report, by itself, is not sufficient information to conclude understatement of consideration or make additions to income. The Revenue must discharge the burden of proving actual receipt of higher consideration, beyond merely relying on a DVO's opinion, especially in the absence of incriminating evidence.

CIT v. SriRama Sugar Mills Ltd.
52 ITR 153 · 1964 · High Court
28
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred to create a new asset or an advantage of enduring nature is not deductible under section 10(2)(v). This expenditure is considered capital in nature.

P Varghese v. ITO
24 CTR 358 · 1981 · Supreme Court
25
citing judgments

The Revenue must prove that the assessee received more consideration than declared when challenging a sale transaction. The declared sale consideration is accepted unless evidence proves otherwise.

Surinder Kumar Boveja v. CWT
287 ITR 52 · 2006 · High Court
20
citing judgments

The court cannot condone prolonged delays in filing appeals if the assessee has not demonstrated due diligence. Delay in filing appeals, particularly those related to penalties under sections 272A(1)(d) and 270A, cannot be routinely excused.

Judgments citing Section 52(2)

Aadhar Shikshan Sanstha Yelavi, Sangli vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 748/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2024

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.748/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Aadhar Shikshan Sanstha The Commissioner Of Yelavi, V Income Tax, Exemption, At Post Yelavi, Tal Tasgaon, S Pune. Dist. Sangli, Sangli – 416416. Pan: Aaata3972D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Mirtyunjoy Barnwal – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Under Section 80G Of The Act, Dated 15.02.2024. The Ld.Cit(E) Dismissed The Application Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Application Is Time Barred. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground(S) Of Appeal : “1. The Id Cit Exemption Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Application Under Clause (Iit) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G As Non- Maintainable On The Ground Of Being Filed Aadhar Shikshan Sanstha Yelavi [A]

Section 10Section 11Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

price by more than 15 per cent. Many other similar situations can be contemplated where it would be absurd and unreasonable to apply section 52(2) according to its strict literal construction. We must, therefore, eschew literalness in the interpretation of section 52(2) and try to arrive

Heritage Youth Foundation, Ichalkaranji vs. CIT, Exemption Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 579/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.579/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : - Heritage Youth Foundation, V The Commissioner Of C/O.Kamlesh Laddha, Plot S Income Tax-Exemption, No.11, Near Arvind Process Pune. Industrial Estate, Ichalkaranji, Maharashtra – 416115. Pan: Aacah5120M Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Exemption, Pune U/Sec.80G Of The Act Dated 16.02.2024. The Ld.Cit(E) Dismissed The Application Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Application Is Time Barred. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Id Cit Exemption Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Application Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G As Non- Maintainable On The Ground Of Being Filed Beyond Heritage Youth Foundation [A]

Section 10Section 11Section 80GSection 80G(5)

price by more than 15 per cent. Many other similar situations can be contemplated where it would be absurd and unreasonable to apply section 52(2) according to its strict literal construction. We must, therefore, eschew literalness in the interpretation of section 52(2) and try to arrive

Gender Lab Foundation, Thane vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 193/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :- Gender Lab Foundation, The Commissioner Of Flat No.2203-4, A Wing, Vs Income Tax, Tribeca Building, Hiranandani Exemption, Pune. Estate, G B Road, Chitalsar Manpada, B.O., Thane. Maharashtra – 400607. Pan: Aajcg4122B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 29/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Under Section 80G Of The Act, Dated 15.12.2023. The Ld.Cit(E) Dismissed The Application Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Application Is Time Barred. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground(S) Of Appeal : “1. The Cit E, Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant, Gender Lab Gender Lab Foundation [A]

Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

price by more than 15 per cent. Many other similar situations can be contemplated where it would be absurd and unreasonable to apply section 52(2) according to its strict literal construction. We must, therefore, eschew literalness in the interpretation of section 52(2) and try to arrive

Vallabhdas Valji Jilha Vachanalaya, Jalgaon vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption - Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1423/PUN/2023[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1423/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :- Vallabhdas Valjijilha The Commissioner Of Vachanalaya, Vs Income Tax- 227, Navi Peth, Jalgaon, Exemption, Pune. Jalgaon – 425001. Pan: Aabtv0802C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Under Section 80G Of The Act, Dated 26.10.2023. The Ld.Cit(E) Dismissed The Application Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Application Is Time Barred. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground(S) Of Appeal : “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Thecommissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption) Pune Has Erred In Rejecting The Application In Form 10Ab Under Section 80G(5) Of The Vallabhdas Valji Jilha Vachanalaya [A]

Section 10Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

price by more than 15 per cent. Many other similar situations can be contemplated where it would be absurd and unreasonable to apply section 52(2) according to its strict literal construction. We must, therefore, eschew literalness in the interpretation of section 52(2) and try to arrive