Which cases are most cited on Section 39(2)?

1. Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (39 ITR 114) — 76 citing judgments; 2007) 5 SCC 447; Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co.: AIR 1962 SC 256; Bank of England v. Vagliano Bros 39 LR (1 SCC 633) — 12 citing judgments; Global Logic India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (117 Taxmann.com 39) — 11 citing judgments; Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (13 ITR 39) — 10 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss Section 39(2)?

BharatTax indexes 6 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 39(2) (Section 39(2)).

← All Phrases

“Section 39(2)”

Q: What is the leading case on Section 39(2)?

1. Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (39 ITR 114) is the decision most relied on for Section 39(2), cited in 76 judgments on BharatTax. Interest income earned by a co-operative bank from the investment of its surplus funds, including those statutorily required to be placed in approved securities, is attributable to its banking business and qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

Section References (mined)Section 39Section 39(2)6 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 39(2) is 1. Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (39 ITR 114), cited in 76 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 39(2)

1. Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT

39 ITR 114 · 1960 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Interest income earned by a co-operative bank from the investment of its surplus funds, including those statutorily required to be placed in approved securities, is attributable to its banking business and qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

2007) 5 SCC 447; Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co.: AIR 1962 SC 256; Bank of England v. Vagliano Bros 39 LR

1 SCC 633 · 2002 · Reported

citing judgments

The levy of interest under Section 234-A of the Income Tax Act is statutory, mandatory, and automatic, meaning it cannot be a question of law that can be raised in appeal. The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 260A is limited to questions of law, and thus, observations on the levy of interest are generally outside its scope.

Global Logic India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

117 Taxmann.com 39 · 2020 · Reported

citing judgments

A company undergoing restructuring activity during the relevant financial year may be rejected as a comparable in transfer pricing analysis, as such events can impact its profitability.

Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

13 ITR 39 · 1945 · Reported

citing judgments

The residential status of an assessee is determined by the control and management of its affairs during the previous year in which the income arises. Objections regarding the place of assessment cannot be raised in an appeal against the assessment order under the Income Tax Act.

Judgments citing Section 39(2)

Unit Improvement Trust, Bharatpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 950/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun Agarwal, CA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, ld. DR

Section 10(20)Section 11(2)Section 250Section 3

property really vests in the corporation, because it provides that during the period of suppression, it shall vest in the State Government Similarly section 39(2) which deals with the distribution of assets in case of liquidation, brings out the same feature: It has been urged before by the Advocate

Unit Improvement Trust, Bharatpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 949/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun Agarwal, CA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, ld. DR

Section 10(20)Section 11(2)Section 250Section 3

Urban Improvement Trust (Now Kota Development Authority), Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 811/JPR/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 250

ACIT, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 717/JPR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 250

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 138/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal & Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (E)-2(1) Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs. Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board Girni Kamgar Kareeda Bhavan, Elphinston Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaaam3255A ..... Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Vipul Joshi & Shri Ashok Patil, Ld.AR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 20Section 250Section 4

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board Girni Kamgar, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 137/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Vipul Joshi & Shri Ashok Patil, Ld.AR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 20Section 250Section 4