“Section 28(5)”
The decision most relied on for Section 28(5) is CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (315 ITR 1), cited in 363 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 28(5)
Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.
Expenditure incurred for increasing a company's share capital or expanding its capital base, such as expenses related to the issue of shares, constitutes capital expenditure. Such expenses are not deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even if they incidentally benefit the business.
Interest on enhanced compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the compensation, not merely interest income, and is exigible to tax on a receipt basis.
Interest received as enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for compulsory acquisition of land is taxable as "income from other sources" under Sections 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and is not exempt under Section 10(37).
The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.
An assessment order cannot be revised under Section 263 for being erroneous due to a perceived lack of enquiry if the Assessing Officer has already conducted an enquiry, applied their mind, and accepted the assessee's explanation.
Disallowance under Section 14A applies only when exempt income is actually received or receivable during the relevant previous year. The provision does not trigger merely upon incurring expenditure if no exempt income materialized in that year.
Expenditure incurred for commercial expediency, even without a direct or immediate benefit but indirectly facilitating business, is deductible as laid out wholly and exclusively for trade. The scope of reference jurisdiction under Section 66 is limited to questions of law, allowing challenges to Tribunal findings of fact only if they are perverse, unreasonable, or lack evidence.
