How many judgments discuss Section 30(6)?

BharatTax indexes 11 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 30(6) (Section 30(6)).

“Section 30(6)”

Q: What is the leading case on Section 30(6)?

Lord Thankerton in Hughes v. Bank of New Zealand (6 ITR 636) is the decision most relied on for Section 30(6), cited in 44 judgments on BharatTax. Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is deductible, even if it is unremunerative or does not yield an immediate profit. The absence of a corresponding receipt does not negate the deductibility of such an expense.

Q: Which cases are most cited on Section 30(6)?

Lord Thankerton in Hughes v. Bank of New Zealand (6 ITR 636) — 44 citing judgments; CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT (30 ITD 161) — 24 citing judgments; 9 & 1111/SRT/2024 (AYs 13-14 to 15-16 Amin Group & Massimo Enterprises 30 (Guj), (iii) PCIT v. D&H Enterprise (72 Taxmann.com 91) — 20 citing judgments; Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India (98 ITR 209) — 19 citing judgments; DSA Engineers v. ITO (30 SOT 31) — 11 citing judgments.

Section References (mined)Section 30Section 30(6)11 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 30(6) is Lord Thankerton in Hughes v. Bank of New Zealand (6 ITR 636), cited in 44 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 30(6)

Lord Thankerton in Hughes v. Bank of New Zealand

6 ITR 636 · 1938 · Reported

citing judgments

Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is deductible, even if it is unremunerative or does not yield an immediate profit. The absence of a corresponding receipt does not negate the deductibility of such an expense.

CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT

30 ITD 161 · ITAT

citing judgments

A statement recorded during a search cannot be the sole basis for an addition to income, especially if made in violation of CBDT instructions and the provisions of section 132(4).

9 & 1111/SRT/2024 (AYs 13-14 to 15-16 Amin Group & Massimo Enterprises 30 (Guj), (iii) PCIT v. D&H Enterprise

72 Taxmann.com 91 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

Addition under section 68 is deleted if the assessee repays the loan in the succeeding assessment year and this is supported by decisions of the jurisdictional High Court.

Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India

98 ITR 209 · 1975 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The 'written-down value' of an asset for depreciation purposes is determined by subtracting the depreciation 'actually allowed' in previous years from the actual cost. The word 'actually' signifies a real, not speculative, allowance.

DSA Engineers v. ITO

30 SOT 31 · 2009 · ITAT

citing judgments

Limitation of time is not a determining factor in matters relating to remission or cessation of trading liabilities under Section 41(1). Addition under Section 41(1) cannot be made without evidence of remission or cessation of liability, or a unilateral write-back by the assessee.

Judgments citing Section 30(6)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Vadodara vs. Diamond Power Infrastructure Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 861/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.861/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 The Dcit Diamond Power Infrastructure बनाम/ Central Circle-3 Ltd. V/S. Vadodara – 390 007 5/9-10, Essen House Bidc Gorwa Vadodara – 390 016 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aaacd 8043 K (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 30(6)

proceedings in respect of six assessment years were initiated u/s.153A of the Act. In the meantime, the assessee-company approached the `NCLT under section 30(6) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Department approached the NCLT and requested that, in this case, the Department may be permitted to complete

The ACIT., Mehsana Circle, Mehsana vs. M/S. B & C Energy Infra Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal

ITA 1674/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

material on record. 6. On going through the facts of the instant case and the contents of the order dated 06.12.2023 passed under Section 30(6) r.w.s.31 of IBC, 2016 by Hon'ble NCLT, Ahmedabad, we observe that evidently, Income Tax Department has not made any claim against the assessee ... facts, we observe that the assessment was completed and demand was raised on the assessee on 01.12.2017, whereas the order of NCLT under Section 30(6) r.w.s.31 of IBC was passed on 06.12.2023. In the Resolution Plan, the Department had not filed any claim for recovery of tax demand with

M/S. B & C Energy Infra Ltd., Mehsana vs. The DCIT, Circle Mehasana, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal

ITA 1553/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

material on 6. On going through the facts of the instant case and the contents of the order dated 06.12.2023 passed under Section 30(6) r.w.s.31 of IBC, 2016 by Hon'ble NCLT, Ahmedabad, we observe that evidently, Income Tax Department has not made any claim against the assessee before ... facts, we observe that the assessment was completed and demand was raised on the assessee on 01.12.2017, whereas the order of NCLT under Section 30(6) r.w.s.31 of IBC was passed on 06.12.2023. In the Resolution Plan, the Department had not filed any claim for recovery of tax demand with

Care Office Equipment Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 348/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 14(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

dated I.T.A No. 348/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 10 Care Office Equipment Ltd. vs. PCIT 14.10.2021 was approved by the Tribunal under Section 30(6) of the Code. It is also on record that the claim which was lodged by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot was verified

Sviit Software Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 32, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6241/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4357/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 5898/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 5899/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 6241/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Sviit Software Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, A-10 & 11, Sector-125, Central Circle-32, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcs9888L

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Narpat Singh, Sr. DR

Section 30(6)