← All Phrases

“Section 24(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 24Section 24(4)10 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 24(4) is CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (306 ITR 392), cited in 577 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 24(4)

CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.
306 ITR 392 · 2008 · Supreme Court
577
citing judgments

The "Purpose Test" determines whether an incentive or subsidy is a capital or revenue receipt for income tax purposes. If the incentive's purpose is to enable an assessee to set up a new industry or make investments in capital assets, it is a capital receipt and not taxable.

Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
5 SCC 536 · 1997 · Reported
93
citing judgments

Tax can only be levied or collected by authority of law, as mandated by Article 265 of the Constitution; consequently, any tax collected contrary to law must be refunded.

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector Of Customs, Bombay
4 SCC 297 · 2002 · Supreme Court
81
citing judgments

The Supreme Court establishes a principle of statutory interpretation that terms like 'assistance' can be construed expansively to include a 'reward', a principle leveraged in income tax cases to determine if receipts such as excise duty exemptions are taxable income or non-taxable capital receipts.

CIT v. Sant Lal (2020) 423 ITR 1, Pr. CIT v. Manoj Hora
396 ITR 644 · 2017 · Reported
78
citing judgments

Additions to income based solely on a third party's statement are invalid, particularly when the assessee is not given an opportunity to cross-examine that third party.

K.T.M.S. Mohd. & Anr. v. Union of India
197 ITR 196 · 1992 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

A lawful assessment must be based on material evidence and cannot rely solely on an admission or statement, especially if obtained by inducement, threat, coercion, or improper means. The voluntary nature of a statement is a prerequisite for it to be acted upon, and authorities must apply their mind to subsequent retractions.

CEPT v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd.
20 ITR 451 · 1951 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

Income derived from leasing a business asset is considered business income under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

L.RS. AND ORS. (2016)10 SCC 315 and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE & ORS. v. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. LTD.
406 ITR 513 · 2018 · High Court
48
citing judgments

For comparability analysis in transfer pricing, giant companies with significantly higher turnover and brand value cannot be compared with small-sized companies, and such companies should be excluded from the comparable set.

Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal
2 SCR 461 · 1969 · Reported
43
citing judgments

A statement made under sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act is not a statement made by a person accused of an offence, but Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act applies because a customs officer is considered an officer in authority. This principle is extended to statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, where their voluntariness can be scrutinized, though they are admissible.

Judgments citing Section 24(4)

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 400/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

held to be Benamidar of the assessee and the assessee is held as a Beneficial Owner of these lands in the term of section 24(4) PBPT Act. 1988 and thereby it was concluded that the investment of Rs.16,09,07,018/ in purchase of above properties in the name

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

The appeals of the assessee are disposed off as under :

ITA 399/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

held to be Benamidar of the assessee and the assessee is held as a Beneficial Owner of these lands in the term of section 24(4) PBPT Act. 1988 and thereby it was concluded that the investment of Rs.16,09,07,018/ in purchase of above properties in the name

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 398/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

held to be Benamidar of the assessee and the assessee is held as a Beneficial Owner of these lands in the term of section 24(4) PBPT Act. 1988 and thereby it was concluded that the investment of Rs. 16,09,07,018/ in purchase of above properties

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 397/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

held to be Benamidar of the assessee and the assessee is held as a Beneficial Owner of these lands in the term of section 24(4) PBPT Act. 1988 and thereby it was concluded that the investment of Rs. 16,09,07,018/ in purchase of above properties

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 396/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 153ASection 69

held to be Benamidar of the assessee and the assessee is held as a Beneficial Owner of these lands in the term of section 24(4) PBPT Act. 1988 and thereby it was concluded that the investment of Rs. 16,09,07,018/ in purchase of above properties

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 395/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 153ASection 69

held to be Benamidar of the assessee and the assessee is held as a Beneficial Owner of these lands in the term of section 24(4) PBPT Act. 1988 and thereby it was concluded that the investment of Rs. 16,09,07,018/ in purchase of above properties

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Canara Bank, Bengaluru

In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 716/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 14Section 147Section 14ASection 154

Karnataka High Court in the case of Syndicate Bank 261 ITR 528 in which penalty has been confirmed for violation of section 24(4)(a) and 24(4)(b) of the Banking Regulation Act and the penalty paid by the assessee bank for violation of above section was not allowed

Canara Bank, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore, Bengaluru

In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 111/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 14Section 147Section 14ASection 154

Karnataka High Court in the case of Syndicate Bank 261 ITR 528 in which penalty has been confirmed for violation of section 24(4)(a) and 24(4)(b) of the Banking Regulation Act and the penalty paid by the assessee bank for violation of above section was not allowed

Bhagwant Education Foundation, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Exemtion 1(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 24(4)Section 26(3)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI

DCIT Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Asian Star Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2778/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Asian Star Company Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3) Room No.803, 8Th Floor, 114-C, Mitta Court, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca4856B Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. Vaishali More, Ars Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143Section 148

said properties to be benami properties, in the reasons, if any, that he would have recorded prior to issuance of SCN on 25.01.2019. Section 24(4) of the PBPT Act, 1988 says that the Initiating Officer, after making such inquires and calling for such reports or evidence as he deems ... Initiating Officer initially covered the properties under section 2(9)(A), 2(9)(C) and later while passing order under section 24(4) he himself restricted to section 2(9) (A) and, In my opinion, the initiating Officer should not be vague and confused while initiating and concluding a proceeding