← All Phrases

“Section 55(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 55Section 55(1)9 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 55(1) is Khatau Junkar Ltd. v. K S Pathania (196 ITR 55), cited in 103 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 55(1)

Khatau Junkar Ltd. v. K S Pathania
196 ITR 55 · 1992 · High Court
103
citing judgments

A claim made by an assessee which requires further inquiry cannot be disallowed under section 143(1)(a)(iii) without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit supporting proof. The phrase 'prima facie inadmissible' means the claim is not admissible on the face of it and does not require further inquiry for disallowance.

CIT v. IBM India Ltd.
357 ITR 88 · 2013 · High Court
88
citing judgments

Expenditure on application software, which enhances business efficiency and requires a computer system to function, constitutes revenue expenditure rather than acquisition of a capital asset, even if it provides an enduring benefit.

CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd.
55 ITR 741 · 1965 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments

A taxing statute must be strictly construed: the subject is not to be taxed unless the charging provision clearly and explicitly imposes the obligation, without room for intendment or implication. There is no equity about a tax, and nothing is to be read into or implied within the language used.

Rohitasava Chand v. CIT
306 ITR 242 · 2008 · High Court
59
citing judgments

Receipt of a non-compete fee, even if it does not alter the assessee's business structure, impairs the carrying on of their activity, constituting a loss of a source of income.

CIT v. Ashaland Corporation
133 ITR 55 · 1982 · High Court
44
citing judgments

Income from the sale of immovable property, including any 'on-money' component, is taxable only when the sale is complete, marked by the execution and registration of the sale deed and/or transfer of possession to the buyer.

CIT v. Mythreyi Pai
152 ITR 247 · 1985 · High Court
44
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred towards the purchase of shares is a capital expenditure and therefore, interest expenditure incurred on such purchases is not eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

275(Delhi); Pr. CIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn Ltd.
143 Taxmann.com 135 · 2022 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Where an expense is incurred for the purpose of acquiring a capital asset, and that asset is subsequently sold, the expenditure must be considered as part of the cost of acquisition of that asset for the purpose of calculating capital gains. This is because the expense forms an integral part of the cost of acquiring the asset, not an expenditure of revenue nature.

CIT vs. Ajax Products Ltd. (1965) 55 ITR 741 (SC), CWT v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana
229 ITR 1 · 1998 · Supreme Court
24
citing judgments

A taxpayer can only be charged in accordance with Section 9. Explanation (a) to Section 9(1)(i) clarifies specific circumstances for chargeability.

Judgments citing Section 55(1)

Arjun Das Jasuja, Jabalpur vs. The CIT (It & Tp), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 796/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.796/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Arjun Das Jasuja The Cit (It & Tp) बनाम/ 16, Nayagaon, Rampur Circle-2 V/S. Jebalpur Ahmedabad Madhya Pradesh – 462 008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aehpj 3059 D अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sapan Usrethe, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nand Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55(1)(b)

contractor. As per the learned CIT, the assessment order was passed without verifying the allowability of the cost of improvement as per Section 55(1)(b)(2) of the Act, and the failure to conduct this inquiry rendered the order erroneous and Arjun Das Jasuja vs. CIT (IT & TP) Asst ... revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act by wrongly holding that cost of improvement is not capital asset within the meaning of section 55(1)(b) (2) of the I.T. Act whereas the cost of improvements have been incurred for the property and not movable appliances and details