← All Phrases

“Section 24(6)”

Section References (mined)Section 24Section 24(6)6 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 24(6) is CIT v. Jaypee DSC Ventures Ltd. (335 ITR 132), cited in 28 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 24(6)

CIT v. Jaypee DSC Ventures Ltd.
335 ITR 132 · 2011 · High Court
28
citing judgments

Interest income generated from fixed deposits, if purchased due to business exigencies or for the purpose of carrying on business activities, is to be treated as business income and not income from other sources.

24 SOT 1(Del) Baid Credit & Portfolio (P) Ltd. v. ITO
325 ITR 588 · 2010 · High Court
21
citing judgments

Surplus arising on the sale of agricultural land is exempt from capital gains tax if it does not fall within the definition of 'capital asset' under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
24 SOT 393 · 2008 · ITAT
12
citing judgments

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not apply to opening balances of unsecured loans that originated in previous financial years and were not credited anew in the current year.

Azimganj Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
352 ITR 82 · 2013 · High Court
12
citing judgments

Rental income from unsold flats in a construction business is assessable as income from house property, not business income. Consequently, deductions under section 24(a) are allowable.

Income-tax Officer 24(1)(4) v. Deepak Khusaldas Mehta
83 Taxmann.com 63 · 2017 · Reported
12
citing judgments

The addition on account of bogus purchases can be made on an estimated basis, specifically at 6% of the bogus purchase value, when the assessee was not given an opportunity for cross-examination and did not provide the whereabouts of the parties. The case also highlights that if books of accounts are not rejected and sales are accepted, only the profit embedded in such purchases can be added.

M/s Fancy Wear v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 24 (3) (1)
87 Taxmann.com 183 · 2017 · Reported
11
citing judgments

The addition for unexplained expenditure or purchases cannot be made solely on the basis of the supplier's failure to appear before the tax authorities, especially if the assessee has discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions. Merely returning notices issued under Section 133(6) is insufficient to declare purchases as bogus.

State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh
3 SCC 632 · 1999 · Reported
10
citing judgments

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies when a temporary statute is repealed before its expiry. Where a provision is omitted and simultaneously re-enacted, the omission does not obliterate the provision.

Judgments citing Section 24(6)