← All Phrases

“Section 42(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 42Section 42(3)4 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 42(3) is CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. (42 Taxmann.com 339), cited in 252 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 42(3)

CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd.
42 Taxmann.com 339 · 2014 · High Court
252
citing judgments

For cash credit additions under Section 68, establishing the 'identity' of a creditor requires more than just producing PAN or assessment particulars; it necessitates demonstrating their actual business operations, place of work, staff, and public recognition. This rigorous standard ensures the assessee proves the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.

East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT
42 ITR 49 · 1961 · Supreme Court
147
citing judgments

Rental income from immovable property owned by an assessee must be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property' (Section 22), even if the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate or property development and leasing. This emphasizes the mandatory classification of income under its specific statutory head.

Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT
42 ITR 179 · 1961 · Supreme Court
54
citing judgments

A transaction, even if appearing to be in the capital field or recorded as such, can constitute an 'adventure in the nature of trade,' leading to taxable income from business rather than capital gains.

Niko Resources Ltd. v. Union of India
374 ITR 369 · 2015 · High Court
40
citing judgments

The retrospective insertion of an Explanation to Section 80IB(9) of the Income Tax Act is unconstitutional. Blocks licensed under a single contract cannot be treated as a single undertaking for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IB(9).

Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT
42 Taxmann.com 21 · 2014 · ITAT
33
citing judgments

A CBDT notification issued under section 90(3) of the Income-tax Act is clarificatory in nature and effective from April 1, 2004, the date section 90(3) was introduced.

Sri Ram Tandon v. CIT
42 ITR 689 · 1961 · High Court
22
citing judgments

Cash sales and their corresponding cash deposits are a regular feature of business activities for an assessee, even if buyer details are not consistently recorded on invoices.

414 and PCIT v. Gujarat Fluro Chemicals Ltd.
155 Taxmann.com 135 · 2023 · High Court
21
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must record reasons for not being satisfied with a suo motu disallowance made by an assessee under section 14A, and this satisfaction must be based on the assessee's accounts.

Promotion and Trading Ltd V/s CIT, 423 ITR510 (DEL) 5. PCIT v. Zee Media Corporation Ltd.
423 ITR 542 · 2020 · High Court
20
citing judgments

The Supreme Court may reconsider the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA where the assessee has incurred losses in earlier years and claims the deduction in the year it became profitable. The court also deliberated on the allowability of certain expenses claimed by the assessee.

Judgments citing Section 42(3)

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna, Income Tax Office vs. The Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Beed

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

ITA 802/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.800, 801 & 802/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Jalna अपीलार्थी / Appellant The Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Rajuri Ves, Beed – 431122, Vs. Maharashtra Pan : Aaaat5256C Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Shri Amol Khairnar 02-12-2024 21-02-2025 प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Per Astha Chandra, Jm : आदेश / Order These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Three Separate Orders All Dated 28.02.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

Rs.31164211 and Rs.6025430. The Appellant claimed these amounts in light of the interest charged by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under Section 42(3) of the R.B.I. Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed this deduction. The Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Incoте Тах (Арpеals), which was dismissed

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna, Income Tax Office vs. The Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Beed

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

ITA 800/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.800, 801 & 802/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Jalna Vs. अपीलार्थी / Appellant The Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Rajuri Ves, Beed – 431122, Maharashtra Pan : Aaaat5256C प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Shri Amol Khairnar 02-12-2024 21-02-2025 Per Astha Chandra, Jm : आदेश / Order These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Three Separate Orders All Dated 28.02.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

Rs.31164211 and Rs.6025430. The Appellant claimed these amounts in light of the interest charged by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under Section 42(3) of the R.B.I. Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed this deduction. The Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Incoте Тах (Аррeals), which was dismissed