← All Phrases

“Section 238(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 238Section 238(1)1 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 238(1) is Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction (126 Taxmann.com 132), cited in 192 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 238(1)

Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction
126 Taxmann.com 132 · 2021 · Supreme Court
192
citing judgments

Once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31(1) of the IBC, claims not included in the plan are extinguished and cannot be pursued. This applies to statutory dues owed to the government and other authorities.

Tools Pvt Ltd. v. CIT
238 ITR 268 · 1999 · High Court
142
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) can consider questions of law arising in assessment proceedings even if they were not raised before the lower authorities. An appellate authority possesses all powers of the original authority, subject to statutory limitations.

CIT v. Amalgamations Ltd.
238 ITR 963 · 1998 · High Court
73
citing judgments

An assessment order can be deemed erroneous due to the Assessing Officer's non-application of mind or inadequate inquiry, warranting revision under Section 263. However, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax must establish the order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and cannot use this power merely to direct further inquiries without such a finding.

Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. v. Hotel Gaudavan (P.) Ltd.
88 Taxmann.com 202 · 2017 · Supreme Court
54
citing judgments

Arbitration proceedings cannot be initiated or continued after a moratorium under section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has come into effect.

Somasundaram and Bros. v. CIT
238 ITR 939 · 1999 · High Court
53
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds is not allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act to the extent such funds are diverted to provide interest-free advances for non-business purposes, such as to sister concerns or promoter companies.

A.M. Shah & Co. v. CIT
238 ITR 415 · 1999 · High Court
52
citing judgments

A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not attracted if the assessee offers a bonafide explanation, even though the distinction between concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars can be thin or overlap.

PCIT v. Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd.
141 Taxmann.com 245 · 2022 · High Court
47
citing judgments

When undisclosed purchases are detected, the addition to income should be restricted to the estimated gross profit margin on such purchases, considering industry standards and the assessee's own gross profit rate, rather than the entire value of the purchases.

CIT v. Amritaben R. Shah
238 ITR 777 · 1999 · High Court
37
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred to acquire controlling interest in a company, rather than to earn dividend income, is not allowable as a deduction under section 57(iii) as it is in the nature of capital expenditure.

Judgments citing Section 238(1)