← All Phrases

“Section 4(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 4Section 4(1)(a)13 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 4(1)(a) is Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (431 ITR 1), cited in 999 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 4(1)(a)

Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
431 ITR 1 · 2021 · Supreme Court
999
citing judgments

Section 80P(4) serves as a proviso to Section 80P(1) and (2), excluding only cooperative banks that are cooperative societies and possess an RBI license for banking business. Its purpose is to exclude cooperative banks operating like commercial banks that lend money to the public.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
953
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. v. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society
392 ITR 74 · 2017 · High Court
762
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments or surplus deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan
263 ITR 706 · 2003 · Supreme Court
691
citing judgments

A citizen is free to carry on business within the law, and mere tax planning without a motive to evade taxes through colorable devices is not frowned upon. The liability to taxation, for the purpose of tax treaty application, is a legal situation, not the fiscal fact of actual payment.

Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
91 ITR 18 · 1973 · Supreme Court
666
citing judgments

Admissions, whether made through entries in account books or statements, are important pieces of evidence but are not conclusive. An assessee has the right to demonstrate that an admission made by them is incorrect or can be retracted.

Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
384 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
631
citing judgments

Co-operative banks are not fundamentally different from co-operative societies, entitling them to claim deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including for interest income treated as business income.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal
290 CTR 263 · 2016 · High Court
583
citing judgments

Assessment based solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act requires the statement to be relatable to incriminating material or evidence found during the search, especially when considering Section 158BB(1) which restricts computation of undisclosed income to evidence found during search.

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son
352 ITR 480 · 2013 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

Statements recorded during a survey under Section 133A do not have evidentiary value as Section 133A does not empower examination on oath. Consequently, additions to income cannot be made solely based on such uncorroborated statements without other credible evidence.

Judgments citing Section 4(1)(a)

Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan, Thiruvalla vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 770/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan .......... Appellant Valuzhathil House, Kozhuvalloor, Thiruvalla [Pan: Akaps3606C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Stephen George, Ar Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Noida [Cit(A)] Dated 25.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Non-Resident Indian. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Filed By The Appellant. The Dcit (International Taxation) Lkn (Hereinafter Called "The Ao"), Based On The Information That The Appellant Made Term Deposits In Bank & Earned Interest Income Of Deposits, Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, The 2 Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan Ao Issued A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act After Duly Complying The Provisions Of Section 148(A) Of The Act. In Response To The Notice U/S. 148, The Appellant Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 On 30.08.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2,44,870/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ao Vide Order Dated 26.05.2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Act At Total Income Of Rs. 35,01,948/-. While Doing So, The Ao Brought To Tax The Income Of Salary Of Rs. 32,57,078/-.

For Appellant: Shri Stephen George, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 4(1)(a)

best "treated as having been received" which is neither "received" nor "deemed to be received" and therefore not within the purview of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act. It is true that the words used in section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act relate to the first receipt after ... which had been sold and delivered by the company to them 5 Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan and they were received within the meaning of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act by these several parties on behalf of the assessee in British India at the time when these payments were made

Mohammed Kutty Pudukkudi, Malappuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 774/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mohammed Kutty Pudukkudi .......... Appellant 4/61, Pudukkudi House, Ponmundam P.O. (Via) Tirur 676106 [Pan: Afepp4646J] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

best "treated as having been received" which is neither "received" nor "deemed to be received" and therefore not within the purview of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act. It is true that the words used in section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act relate to the first receipt after ... proceeds of the goods which had been sold and delivered by the company to them and they were received within the meaning of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act by these several parties on behalf of the assessee in British India at the time when these payments were made

Waterworld Tourism Company Private Limited, Alappuzha vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 726/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Water World Tourism Company Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Room No. 18, Municipal Shopping Centre Zilla Court Ward, Opp. Boat Jetty Thathampally S.O., Alappuzha 688013 [Pan: Aabcm3387L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1& Tps, Alappuzha ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Thomas Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

best "treated as having been received" which is neither "received" nor "deemed to be received" and therefore not within the purview of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act. It is true that the words used in section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act relate to the first receipt after ... proceeds of the goods which had been sold and delivered by the company to them and they were received within the meaning of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act by these several parties on behalf of the assessee in British India at the time when these payments were made

Jypore Manufacturing Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Hemant Gordhanbhai Patel, Nadiad vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn., Vadodara

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1684/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 69

best "treated as having been received" which is neither "received" nor "deemed to be received" and therefore not within the purview of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act. It is true that the words used in section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act relate to the first receipt after ... proceeds of the goods which had been sold and delivered by the company to them and they were received within the meaning of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act by these several parties on behalf of the assessee in British India at the time when these payments were made

ITO-26(2)(1), Mumbai vs. S D N Company, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2457/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 2457/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri Firoze Andhiyarujina, Sr. Advocate & ManeckFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R
Section 14Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)

Income-Tax vs R. Ponnammal [1987] 164 ITR 707 (Mad), has held that transfers between sons and daughters would not attract provision of Section 4(1)(a) or 4(2) of the Gift-tax Act and the transactions are not taxable at all. Similar view was taken

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Builders and Developers LLP, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 269/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)
Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Minerals Private Limited, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 240/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)
Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

ACIT, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Minerals Private Limited, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 239/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)
Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

DCIT(E), Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Indian Grameen Services, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 104/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)(a)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 25

need to be considered. 20.2.1. In Reva Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Gift Tax, Gujarat II, (2001) 9 SCC 111, while considering Section 4(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958, the Supreme Court held that „it is necessary for the Assessing Officer to show that the property ... Gift Tax, Tamil Nadu - I v. Indo Traders & Agencies (Madras) P. Ltd., (1981) 131 ITR 313 (Madras), again while considering the provision of Section 4(1)(a) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958, the High Court of Madras observed as under: "In order to apply this provision, it is necessary

Smt. Pratimaben V. Raja, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Intl. Taxn., Rajkot

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 51/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 148Section 2(30)Section 68Section 69

best "treated as having been received" which is neither "received" nor "deemed to be received" and therefore not within the purview of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act. It is true that the words used in section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act relate to the first receipt after ... proceeds of the goods which had been sold and delivered by the company to them and they were received within the meaning of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act by these several parties on behalf ITA Nos.50&51/Rjt/2018 Shri Vinodkumar Hiralal Raja vs. ITO & 01 other Asst.Year

Shri Vinodkumar Hiralal Raja, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Intl. Taxn., Rajkot

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 50/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 148Section 2(30)Section 68Section 69

best "treated as having been received" which is neither "received" nor "deemed to be received" and therefore not within the purview of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act. It is true that the words used in section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act relate to the first receipt after ... proceeds of the goods which had been sold and delivered by the company to them and they were received within the meaning of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act by these several parties on behalf ITA Nos.50&51/Rjt/2018 Shri Vinodkumar Hiralal Raja vs. ITO & 01 other Asst.Year

Spe India Films Holding Llc, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Intl Tax) -4(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result ground no-2 raised by the assessee- is fully allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalspe India Films Holding Llc C/O, Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp One International Centre, Tower No.3, 27Th Floor-32Nd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaocs1827L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (International Taxation)-4(2)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Narimaon Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.J. Pardiwala/Paras Savla Respondent By : Sh. A.K. Keshari Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Drp’] Dated 06.01.2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant, Objects To The Order Dated 19 January 2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Sh. P.j. Pardiwala/Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Keshari
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

wherein the AAR has ruled as under: " Let us now turn our attention to two important decisions of the Supreme Court which interpreted Section 4(1) and 42 of the 1922 Act. In the case of Turner Morrison Co. vs. CIT, 23 ITR 152, the question arose whether a company ... other alternative, i. e ., Section 4(I)(a), is no longer applicable. In other words, according to Mr. Mitra's contention, section 4(1)(a) becomes a dead letter so far as income, profits and gains arising or accruing to a non-resident are concerned. We are unable to accede