← All Phrases

“Section 6(1)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 6Section 6(1)(b)4 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 6(1)(b) is CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (297 CTR 614), cited in 659 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 6(1)(b)

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court
659
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
377 ITR 533 · 2015 · High Court
196
citing judgments

Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) service providers are functionally dissimilar to Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) or Information Technology Enabled Services (ITeS) providers and cannot be compared for transfer pricing purposes, even under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). Further, companies with significantly different business models, such as those with extensive subcontracting, should be excluded as comparables.

535 (Del); 6. Tata Teleservices v. UOI
385 ITR 497 · 2016 · High Court
163
citing judgments

Orders passed under section 201(1) are barred by limitation if the prescribed period of limitation under section 201(3) had expired before the amendment by the Finance Act, 2014 came into force. The amended section 201(3) does not apply retrospectively.

Cummins India Ltd. v. DCIT
96 Taxmann.com 576 · 2018 · ITAT
67
citing judgments

The weighted deduction for scientific research expenditure under Section 35(2AB) is allowable, clarifying that the requirement for the prescribed authority to approve or quantify the expenditure from year to year became effective only from April 1, 2016, through amendments to Rule 6(7A)(b).

Loyal Motor Service Co. Ltd. v. CIT
14 ITR 647 · 1946 · High Court
48
citing judgments

A payment of bonus or commission is allowable as a business deduction under Section 36(1)(ii) unless it constitutes a distribution of profits or dividends, thereby distinguishing payments genuinely for services from those merely intended to escape taxation.

Delhi in CIT v. Best Plastics (P) Ltd.
295 ITR 256 · 2007 · High Court
41
citing judgments

Assessment orders passed by an Assessing Officer are liable to be set aside if they disregard binding instructions or circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), especially concerning the selection of returns for scrutiny. The CBDT circulars are binding on all officers of the Income-tax department.

CIT v. Jain Exports (P.) Ltd.
35 Taxmann.com 540 · 2013 · High Court
32
citing judgments

A credit amount outstanding for several years cannot be treated as a remission or cessation of a trading liability under Section 41(1) merely because the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the transaction or because the liability is barred by limitation.

CIT v. Doom Dooma India Ltd.
310 ITR 392 · 2009 · Supreme Court
30
citing judgments

The 'written down value' (WDV) under Section 43(6)(b) is determined by depreciation that has been 'actually allowed', meaning it has been taken into account or granted and given effect to by the Income-tax Officer in computing taxable income.

Judgments citing Section 6(1)(b)

Haveli Taluka Veej Kamgar Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (1) Pune, Pmt Building, Swargate

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1428/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1428/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Haveli Taluka Veej Kamgar Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, 415/2 A, Shrine Complex, Somvar Peth, Pune -411011 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(1), Pune Pan : Aaaah2281D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Deepak S. Sasar Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde 05-11-2024 15-01-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.04.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- *1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.8,84,993/- Claimed By The Appellant U/S.80P (2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Interest Income Earned From Deposit With Pdcc Bank. 2. Alternatively, The Interest Income Earned By The Appellant From The Investments In A Co-Operative Bank Is Also Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P (2) (D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S.80P Of Commission Receipts Of Rs.53,52,723/- After Deducting The Salary Expenses Of Rs.3,00,202/- From The Total Commission Receipts Of Rs.56,52,925/-. Being The Same Income Is Received From The Mseb On Account Of Running Cash Counter For Mseb Bill Payments & The Same Is Treated As Income From Other Sources. 4. The Appellant Crave Leave To Add, Delete, Amend, Alter, Vary And/Or Withdraw All Or Any One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.” 2

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

commission/fees from its customers being public sector undertakings would be exempt under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Our view is also supported by Section 6(1)(b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which states that in addition to the business of banking, a banking company may engage itself