← All Phrases

“Section 34(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 34Section 34(2)5 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 34(2) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 34(2)

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd.
323 ITR 518 · 2010 · High Court
470
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A, for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income, is not permissible when the assessee has not earned any exempt income, such as dividend income under Section 10(34), during the year under consideration.

HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT
383 ITR 529 · 2016 · High Court
408
citing judgments

Where an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, investments yielding exempt income are presumed to be made out of such funds, precluding disallowance of related interest expenditure under section 14A.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
341 ITR 385 · 2012 · High Court
270
citing judgments

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

CIT v. Microlabs Ltd.
383 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
175
citing judgments

If an assessee possesses interest-free funds exceeding investments in tax-free securities, it is presumed that investments are made from these own funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii). Additionally, weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) is computed on the gross expenditure incurred, not net expenditure after reducing income earned.

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT
27 ITR 34 · 1955 · Supreme Court
174
citing judgments

The Supreme Court established the foundational test for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure, holding that the aim and object of the expenditure and whether it brings into existence an asset or an advantage of an enduring nature determines its character, irrespective of the payment method. An advantage lasting five years or more can be considered enduring.

CIT v. UTI Bank Ltd.
32 Taxmann.com 370 · 2013 · High Court
131
citing judgments

If an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free funds, it is presumed that investments yielding exempt income were made from these funds, therefore disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A is not justified.

CIT v. Sitex Industries Ltd.
82 Taxmann.com 171 · 2017 · High Court
117
citing judgments

No disallowance for investments made out of surplus funds can be made if tax-free dividends are earned on such investments.

Judgments citing Section 34(2)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh vs. Frontier Agrotech Private Limited, Chandigarh

ITA 388/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: The Appeal Is Heard Or Is Disposed Off.

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144B

being GST expenses relatable to purchase returns, the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s explanation that under Section 34(2) of the CGST Act, the input tax reversal can be claimed only if material is returned within the statutory cutoff period, and that returns made after 30 November ... warrant any interference. 7.7 As regards the GST expenses, it was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has examined the statutory framework under section 34(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has rightly held that where purchase returns occur after the statutory cut-off date, the GST component becomes

ITO-13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 2739/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleito-13(2)(1) V. Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd 701, Central Plaza 147, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Daftari Road, Malad (East) M. K. Marg, Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra -400097 Maharashtra-400020 Pan: Aalcs9354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Jaiprakash Bairaga & Rupa Nanda Department Represented By : Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Viswanathan Chettiar v. Commr, of Income Tax, Madras, 25 ITR 79 Mad, construing the time limit for completion of an assessment under Section 34(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, which provided that it shall be made "within four years from the end of the year in which ... reassessment was made and not the date on which such Page No. 8 Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd assessment or reassessment order made under Section 34(2) was served on the assessee. 12. It may be seen, therefore, that, if an authority is authorised to exercise a power

Haier Appliances India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, It & Tp Delhi 2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 417/DEL/2022[2017-148]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2017-148

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92BSection 92F

Viswanathan Chettiar v. Commr, of Income Tax, Madras, 25 ITR 79 Mad, construing the time limit for completion of an assessment under Section 34(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, which provided that it shall be made "within four years from the end of the year in which ... date on which the assessment or reassessment was made and not the date on which such assessment or reassessment order made under Section 34(2) was served on the assessee. 12. It may be seen, therefore, that, if an authority is authorised to exercise a power

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Raipur vs. Meserss Chhattisgarh Stateelectricity Board, Raipur

ITA 31/RPR/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.31/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (Through Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited) Dangania Raipur Pan : Aabcc7876Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Praveen Khandelwal & PraveenFor Respondent: Dr. Simran Bhullar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

Jaganmohan Rao’s case (supra) therefore, is only to the extent that once an assessment is validly reopened by issuance of notice under section 34(2) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to section 148 of the 1961 Act), the previous under-assessment is set aside ... Jaganmohan Rao’s case (supra) therefore, is only to the extent that once an assessment is validly reopened by issuance of notice under section 34(2) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to section 148 of the 1961 Act), the previous under-assessment is set aside

M/S. Croda India Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai-6

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35Section 43(6)

made year after year, should not, in any event, exceed the actual cost of the assets to the assessee [See : section 34(2)(i)]. The definition of "actual cost" is to be found in section 43(1) and the definition of "written down value" is to be found in section