← All Phrases

“profits and gains of business or profession”

Income HeadsSection 28Section 281,710 judgments

The decision most relied on for profits and gains of business or profession is CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (358 ITR 295), cited in 935 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on profits and gains of business or profession

CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.
358 ITR 295 · 2013 · Supreme Court
935
citing judgments

When an income or expenditure is revenue neutral across different assessment years, where any benefit derived is offset by a corresponding liability or reversal, no additional tax liability arises, particularly concerning income recognition under the mercantile system of accounting.

Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT
320 ITR 577 · 2010 · Supreme Court
353
citing judgments

The case concerns the allowability of deductions for provisions made under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially those related to bad and doubtful debts. It distinguishes such deductions from the recognition of interest income on non-performing assets (NPAs).

Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh v. ITO
191 ITR 667 · 1991 · Supreme Court
254
citing judgments

Section 40A(3) is not absolute, and its application considers business expediency, practical difficulties, and other relevant factors, while keeping in mind its objective to curb the practice of ploughing unaccounted money into the system.

Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT
44 ITR 362 · 1962 · Supreme Court
157
citing judgments

The income derived from letting out assets, such as coal mining leases, constitutes "profits and gains of business or profession" if the primary object and activity of the assessee company are to acquire, develop, and sub-lease such assets. This classification holds even if the income arises from letting, provided the letting itself constitutes the assessee's business.

(P.) Ltd. v. CIT
56 ITR 52 · 1965 · Supreme Court
146
citing judgments

Expenditure is revenue if incurred for operating a business to earn profit, even if an incidental enduring advantage results; it is capital if it creates an asset or an enduring advantage for the entire business structure.

Anupam Tele Services v. ITO
366 ITR 122 · 2014 · High Court
124
citing judgments

Section 40A(3) disallowances are not absolute; genuine and bonafide cash payments, where the payee's identity is established and business expediency is proven, fall outside its scope, as the section's purpose is to curb unaccounted money, not disallow genuine expenditure.

ACG Associated Capsule Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central IV, Mumbai
3 SCC 321 · 2022 · Reported
89
citing judgments

Profits of a business are computed under the head 'Profits and Gains of Business or Profession' and then reduced by specific receipts mentioned in Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. This means that for the purposes of Section 80HHC, only profits computed under the business head are considered, with subsequent adjustments for specified receipts.

Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
386 ITR 500 · 2016 · Supreme Court
89
citing judgments

If an assessee company's main business object is to acquire and rent out properties, the rental income derived is taxable as 'Profits and gains of business or profession', rather than 'Income from house property', as the nature of the activity constitutes a business.

Judgments citing profits and gains of business or profession

Pr. CIT Circle-2, Mumbai vs. Bharat Prtroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1601/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bharat Petroleum बिधम/ Pcit, Circle-2 Corporation Ltd. Room No.344, Aayakar Vs. Taxation Section, Bhavan, M. K. Road, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan 1, Mumbai-400020. 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb2902M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 21.02.2020 For Assessment Year [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”] 2016-17 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistryFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 32A

which is allowed as deduction (whether by way of depreciation or otherwise) in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” of any previous year.” As per the definition, new asset means any new plant or machinery. Thereafter, there are certain exclusions ... which is allowed as deduction (whether by way of depreciation or otherwise) in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" of any previous year.(emphasis supplied by us) 13. Sub-Section (1A) of Section 32AC, which is applicable to the relevant

Smt. Nandini V. Kalgutkar, Mangalore vs. ITO, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 802/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Smt. Nandini V. Kalgutkar, The Income Tax University Medical Officer, Centre, Ward 2 (1), Jyothi Circle, Mangalore. Mangalore. Vs. Pan: Akbpk2399B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Srinivas Kamath, Ca : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 08-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-09-2022 Order Per Chandra Poojarithis Is An Appeal By Assessee Directed Against Order Of Ld.Cit(A) Dated 07/03/2013. 2. The Assessee Raised Following Grounds. “1. The Appellate Court I.E. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Mysore I.E., Has Erred In Confirming The Additions Of Income Made By The Assessing Officer. The Order Is Opposed To Law & Facts. The Hon'Ble Commissioner Has Passed The Order Mainly Presuming That The Appellant Was Not Interested In Pursuing The Appeal As He Has Failed To Respond To The Notice. The Fact Is That The Appellant Was Very Much Interested In Getting Relief As The Appellant Is Not Having Sufficient Income Even To Lead A Normal Life. But Unfortunately, The Authorized Representative Failed In Discharging His Responsibility For The Reasons Best Known To Him.

For Appellant: Shri S. Srinivas Kamath, CA

cessation thereof, the amount obtained by such person or the value of benefit accruing to him shall be deemed to be profits and gains of business or profession and accordingly chargeable to income-tax as the income of that previous year, whether the business or profession in respect of which