← 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)