← All Phrases

“Section 3(1)(8)”

Section References (mined)Section 3Section 3(1)(8)1 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 3(1)(8) is CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (264 ITR 110), cited in 398 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 3(1)(8)

CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
264 ITR 110 · 2003 · High Court
398
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on assets for which the cost has been fully allowed as an application of income under Section 11 in previous years, when computing the income of a charitable trust. Charitable trusts are also entitled to carry forward their deficit.

Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT
5 SCC 482 · 1997 · Supreme Court
261
citing judgments

For income to be assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' as per Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, beneficial ownership or the right to enjoy the property is sufficient; legal ownership is not a mandatory prerequisite.

CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.
91 ITR 8 · 1973 · Supreme Court
236
citing judgments

Income cannot be assessed on purely notional figures or mere suspicion; it must be based on actual evidence and supporting material demonstrating its accrual or receipt by the assessee. Assessments made without such evidence are bad-in-law.

Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh
271 ITR 401 · 2004 · Supreme Court
231
citing judgments

The sale of 'canned software' in physical form is the sale of a copyrighted article and constitutes 'goods,' distinct from the underlying copyright. This case provides foundational principles for distinguishing copyrighted works from copyrighted articles and for what qualifies as 'production or manufacturing of goods or articles' under tax laws.

Zile Singh v. State of Haryana
8 SCC 1 · 2004 · Reported
222
citing judgments

A statute or amendment can apply retrospectively even without an express provision, if such application is a necessary implication from the language used, especially for clarificatory amendments or those intended to cure an acknowledged evil for the community's benefit.

PCIT v. Wipro Ltd.
140 Taxmann.com 223 · 2022 · Supreme Court
192
citing judgments

Exemption provisions under Chapter III, such as Section 10B(8), must be interpreted strictly, and any claim for such exemptions must be made in the return of income. The principles governing Chapter III (incomes not forming part of total income) differ from those for Chapter VIA (deductions in computing total income).

153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat v. ITO
296 ITR 90 · 2008 · High Court
171
citing judgments

A live link of third-party information can form the basis for reopening an assessment under Section 148, provided it contains material facts necessary for assessment. The Assessing Officer must demonstrate a "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, which can be satisfied by such information even if it pertains to other assessees or relates to accommodation entries.

CIT v. ITI Ltd.
313 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court
142
citing judgments

An employer is not statutorily obligated to collect evidence from employees regarding the actual utilization of amounts paid towards leave travel concession or conveyance allowance, unless specific requirements are mandated by law or a CBDT circular.

Judgments citing Section 3(1)(8)

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) -3(3), Mumbai vs. Excel Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6469/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6469/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Deputy Commissioner V/S. Excel Entertainment Pvt Of Income Tax बनाम Ltd. (Central Circle)-3(3) 404, Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Mumbai 400051 Shubham 701, Orchid Pride, Convent Avenue Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai 40054 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace5273A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi A/W Shri Anurag Tulsian & Shri Vipul Mody राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeal) 51, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 15.10.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal. "1. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Citia) Is Not Justified In Holding That Assessee Is Eligible To Claim Concessional Rate Of Tax U/S.115Baa Of The Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Shri Anurag Tulsian & Shri Vipul ModyFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

report document, return or statement or such other record, by whatever name called, under the provisions of the specified Act (vee section 3(1)(8) read with section Page 4 ITA No. 6469/Mum/2024 AY 2020-21 Excel Entertainment pvt ltd. 2013(5)(0) of TOLA), Section 2(1