← All Phrases

“Section 33(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 33Section 33(1)25 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 33(1) is M/s Mahadev Cold Storage v. Jurisdictional AO (43 Taxmann.com 33), cited in 262 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 33(1)

M/s Mahadev Cold Storage v. Jurisdictional AO
43 Taxmann.com 33 · 2014 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds are an allowable deduction if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return under section 139(1), even if the payment is made beyond the due date specified by the respective welfare fund Acts, as per the provisions of section 43B.

Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. DCIT
372 ITR 33 · 2015 · High Court
139
citing judgments

Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not applicable on the discount extended to distributors of pre-paid services, as the distributor does not earn income at the time of purchasing pre-paid cards from the assessee. The assessee is not in possession of any income belonging to the distributor at that point.

ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das
52 ITR 335 · 1964 · Supreme Court
100
citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarified that an appellate authority's 'finding' must be essential for disposing of the appeal for the relevant assessment year, not an incidental observation about another year's income. Appellate authorities cannot issue directions on matters not directly arising in the appeal for the specific assessment year, especially regarding escaped income, which has separate statutory mechanisms.

R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT
75 ITR 33 · 1970 · High Court
63
citing judgments

The mere absence of customer addresses, particularly for cash sales, in the books of account is not a sufficient ground to reject the books or to cast suspicion on the genuineness of the transactions.

Sohan Lal Gupta v. CIT
33 ITR 786 · 1958 · High Court
56
citing judgments

Tax authorities cannot reject an assessee's affidavit or a retraction of an admission of income without providing an opportunity to substantiate the claims or cross-examine the deponent. Simply lacking documentary evidence is not sufficient ground for outright rejection of such evidence.

State Bank of Mysore v. DCIT
33 SOT 7 · 2009 · ITAT
39
citing judgments

When bad debts written off were not allowed as a deduction, any subsequent recovery from such bad debts cannot be brought to tax. This principle is upheld even if a deduction for provisions for bad and doubtful debts was allowed under section 36(1)(viia).

Ltd. v. CIT
79 ITR 589 · 1971 · Supreme Court
37
citing judgments

This case is authority for the principle that deductions under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act may be granted in respect of certain categories of receipts. The court's decision in this case is relied upon when interpreting the scope of business activities for tax purposes.

Pr. CIT v. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd.
107 Taxmann.com 481 · 2019 · Supreme Court
34
citing judgments

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 overrides any other enactment, including the Income Tax Act, when an NCLT has declared a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. Proceedings against the assessee are barred during the moratorium.

Judgments citing Section 33(1)

M/S Poddar Finin Consultancy P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1860/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 35DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

income-tax had been imposed on the assessee. 8.7 The Hon'ble High Court, dwelling upon the facts of the case observed that Section 33(1) of 1922 Act provides for an appeal by an assessee “objecting to an order passed by an AAC". The AAC had, in the case ... though an appeal was provided for by the Income-tax Act. 8.9 In the circumstances in an appeal under section 33(1) of 1922 Act against an order passed under section 23(4) of 1922 Act, the validity of the assessment made under section 23(4) of 1922 Act could