← All Phrases

“Section 34(1)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 34Section 34(1)(c)1 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 34(1)(c) is Banarsi Debi v. ITO (53 ITR 100), cited in 63 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 34(1)(c)

Banarsi Debi v. ITO
53 ITR 100 · 1964 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments

For income-tax notices, particularly under Section 34(1) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to Sections 147/148 of the 1961 Act), there is no real distinction between the 'issue' and 'service' of a notice. The word 'issued' must be given a wider meaning, effectively encompassing 'served'.

Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT & Excess Profits Tax
34 ITR 368 · 1958 · Supreme Court
57
citing judgments

Investments made by a holding company in its subsidiary can be considered a business activity, allowing related business expenditures to be deducted and not disallowed.

CIT v. Fr, Mullers Charitable Institutions
51 Taxmann.com 378 · 2014 · Supreme Court
39
citing judgments

Income earned from investments or deposits made in violation of Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act is taxable, but only to the extent of the income so earned, not the entire corpus. Circular No. 387, dated 06.07.1994, supports this interpretation and binds the revenue authorities.

Viswanathan Chettiar v. Commr, of Income Tax, Madras
25 ITR 79 · 1954 · High Court
29
citing judgments

The time limit for completing an assessment or reassessment under Section 34(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, is calculated from the date the assessment or reassessment is made, not the date it is served on the assessee.

Reliance Utility & Power 313 ITR 340 (Bom-HC), CIT v. Hero Cycle
323 ITR 158 · 2010 · High Court
22
citing judgments

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied if the assessee has provided all relevant material and not concealed any inaccurate particulars of income, even if a claim is not sustainable in law. The Assessing Officer must properly verify the genuineness of claims.

Fatechand Agarwal v. CWT
97 ITR 701 · 1974 · High Court
21
citing judgments

The Revenue bears the burden of proving that a notice was duly served on the assessee or their authorized representative. If no valid notice is served within the prescribed period, the Income-Tax Officer lacks the authority to initiate reassessment proceedings.

Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC); CIT v. Upasana Hospital
83 ITR 377 · 1972 · Supreme Court
20
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by a holding company in making investments in its subsidiaries can be treated as a business activity and thus, the expenditure is allowable as a business deduction.

Director Of Income Tax v. Agrim Charan Foundation
253 ITR 593 · 2002 · High Court
19
citing judgments

Where only a part of a trust's income is diverted in contravention of Section 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d), only that diverted portion of the income is taxable, not the entire income. This means tax should be levied on the relevant income or a part of it, potentially at the maximum marginal rate, rather than denying exemption under Section 11 for the entire income.

Judgments citing Section 34(1)(c)

Narendra Kumar Mishra, Bhopal vs. ITO-3(1), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 233/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

For Appellant: Narendra Kumar Mishra, Bhopal
Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

point. In the present case, the objection put forward by the accountable person was based on a decision of this Court, striking down section 34(1)(c). The clubbing of the lineal descendant's share in the dutible estate was done by the assessing authority under this provision ... attention was drawn to it, in the appeal. The Tribunal could not very well ignore the effect of this Court's decision nullifying section 34(1)(c) merely on the feeble technicality that it had not occurred to the accountable person to invoke the decision of this Court