← All Phrases

“Section 135(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 135Section 135(1)13 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 135(1) is Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (135 Taxmann.com 286), cited in 148 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 135(1)

Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
135 Taxmann.com 286 · 2022 · Supreme Court
148
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by pharmaceutical companies on freebies provided to medical practitioners is not deductible under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, as such gifting is prohibited by the Medical Council Regulations, 2002. The court also held that what is directly prohibited by law cannot be indirectly evaded through contrivance.

CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd.
305 ITR 409 · 2008 · Supreme Court
118
citing judgments

For computing book profits under Section 115JB, an Assessing Officer's power is limited to examining duly certified books and making adjustments only as per the Explanation. A provision for bad and doubtful debts, being a diminution in the value of an asset (receivable), does not constitute a 'provision for liability' under Clause (c) of the Explanation and therefore cannot be added back.

CIT v. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd.
335 ITR 117 · 2011 · High Court
112
citing judgments

Weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) is allowable for R&D expenditure incurred even if the approval from the DSIR is granted in a subsequent assessment year, provided the application for approval was made in time. The assessee is entitled to the deduction if the approval is based on verification of details submitted.

CIT v. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities
135 ITR 485 · 1982 · High Court
98
citing judgments

The income of a charitable trust, particularly income from property held under trust, for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 11, must be computed in a normal commercial manner, without strict reference to the computation provisions for different heads of income like Section 14 or Section 24(a). This approach ensures that the income available for application or accumulation is assessed on commercial principles.

CIT v. Madras Refineries Ltd.
266 ITR 170 · 2004 · High Court
94
citing judgments

Expenses incurred for community development, even if not directly linked to business operations, can be considered allowable business expenditure if they foster goodwill and are part of evolving business practices.

CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd.
372 ITR 303 · 2015 · High Court
93
citing judgments

An assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue merely because it does not explicitly discuss an issue for which the Assessing Officer had raised queries and the assessee had provided a response. In such a scenario, the Principal Commissioner cannot invoke revisionary powers under Section 263.

JMS Mining (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT
130 Taxmann.com 118 · 2021 · ITAT
93
citing judgments

Donations made as part of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure are eligible for deduction under Section 80G if all conditions of Section 80G are satisfied. Such expenses are not automatically disallowed merely because they are CSR expenditure, in the absence of specific amendments to Section 80G similar to those in Section 37(1).

MOIL Ltd. v. CIT
396 ITR 244 · 2017 · High Court
74
citing judgments

Section 263 cannot be invoked to revise an assessment where the Assessing Officer has made an enquiry, examined the details submitted by the assessee, and applied their mind to be satisfied about the admissibility of a claim.

Judgments citing Section 135(1)