← All Phrases

“Section 58(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 58Section 58(4)6 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 58(4) is Pr.CIT v. Rajeev Behi (231 Taxmann 58), cited in 30 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 58(4)

Pr.CIT v. Rajeev Behi
231 Taxmann 58 · 2015 · High Court
30
citing judgments

For the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the formation of satisfaction must establish a prima facie nexus with the seized material in the possession of the department. A mere mention of 'satisfied' in the order or note sheet is insufficient.

CIT v. Avani Export
58 Taxmann.com 100 · 2015 · Supreme Court
29
citing judgments

The Supreme Court confirmed the Gujarat High Court's view in Avani Exports, regarding the exclusion of the profit element within DEPB income when calculating deductions under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act.

CIT vs. Krishak Sahkari Ganna Samiti Limited 258 ITR 594 (Alld)and CIT v. Cooperative Cane Development Union Limited
118 ITR 770 · 1979 · High Court
12
citing judgments

Interest earned by co-operative societies on fixed deposits with banks and other co-operative societies is includible in their total income, unless it falls within the specific exemptions provided by Section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act.

Judgments citing Section 58(4)

Sharath Kumar Reddy Sareddy, Wanaparthy, Mahabub Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Mahabubnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1096/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1096/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Sharath Kumar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Sareddy, Wanaparthy Ward – 1 Mahbubnagar Mahbubnagar Pan:Hpwps0712H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 194BSection 58(4)

Assessing Officer denied the setting of the loss against the winning amount while passing the assessment order in view of the provisions of section 58(4) r.w.s. 115BB of the I.T. Act and held that in case of the income from other sources, no deduction in respect of any expenses ... assessee has submitted that only the net result of the gaming activities has to be taken into consideration and therefore, the provisions of section 58(4) of the Act cannot be pressed into service for taking only the gross winning amount to tax @ 30% as per the provisions of section

Singhvi Tradelink Private Limited, Gandhidham vs. ITO, Ward - 2, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 335/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: ShriD. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

existing entity. The LLP inherits all the assets, liabilities, and obligations, including those under ongoing legal proceedings, as explicitly provided under Section 58(4) (b) of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, which states: "all tangible (movable or immovable) and intangible property vested in the firm or the company ... Singhvi Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. The LLP inherits all the assets, liabilities, and obligations, including those under ongoing legal proceedings, as explicitly provided under Section 58(4) (b) of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008. The conversion of a private limited company into an LLP is governed by the provisions

DCIT Central Circle-2, Coimbatore vs. M/S Maruti Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 395/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sridharan (Sr. Advocate), Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) & Shri P
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 194BSection 194GSection 2(24)(ix)Section 263Section 58(4)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार

Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore vs. M/S Pooja Marketing, Malad

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 960/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sridharan (Sr. Advocate), Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) & Shri P
Section 143(3)Section 194BSection 1lSection 2(24)(ix)Section 263Section 56(2)(ib)Section 58

from lottery tickets which is chargeable to tax u/s. 2(24)(ix) r.w.s. 56(2) of the Act and consequently the provisions of section 58(4) of the Act would have no application. The decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Sales International

Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore vs. M/S Pooja Marketing, Malad

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 958/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sridharan (Sr. Advocate), Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) & Shri P
Section 143(3)Section 194BSection 1lSection 2(24)(ix)Section 263Section 56(2)(ib)Section 58

from lottery tickets which is chargeable to tax u/s. 2(24)(ix) r.w.s. 56(2) of the Act and consequently the provisions of section 58(4) of the Act would have no application. The decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Sales International

Insurekot Sports P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1075/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Learned Cit(A) Noted The Facts Of The Case & Assessee’S Submission As Under :- “Assessee Has Availed Of A Franchiseeship Of Team Puneri Paltan Which Is A Participating Team In The Pro Kabaddi League Organized By Mashal Sports Private Limited. During Fy 2016 17 Ay 2017 18 It Received Prize Money Of Rs 3000000 Being The Third Placed Team Of The Event. The Same Is Accounted & Shown Under The Revenue From Operations As Prize Money. The Same Is 2 Insurekot Sports Pvt. Ltd.

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(ix)Section 56(2)(ib)

been used to stipulate that the said amounts would be treated as income and that also income from other sources. Coming to section 58(4), we find that this stipulates that "no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance in connection with such income shall be allowed under