← All Phrases

“Section 30(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 30Section 30(1)2 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 30(1) is Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (37 ITR 66), cited in 206 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 30(1)

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 66 · 1959 · Supreme Court
206
citing judgments

Expenditure is defined as money paid out or away, which is gone irretrievably. To be deductible under Section 37(1), expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for business, not capital or personal, and not fall under specific provisions of Sections 30 to 36, often justifiable on grounds of commercial expediency.

ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. v. CIT
343 ITR 89 · 2012 · Supreme Court
144
citing judgments

For calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC, if total interest is netted off after adjusting interest paid and received, the 90% reduction specified in Explanation (baa) is not applicable.

General Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT
240 ITR 139 · 1999 · Supreme Court
61
citing judgments

Rule 5(a) of the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act applies to add back an amount only if it is an expenditure or allowance contemplated in sections 30 to 43A and is specifically disallowed. Without such a specific prohibition, amounts like provisions for preference share redemption or amortization cannot be added back to an insurance company's profits.

CIT v. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills (P) Ltd.
315 ITR 114 · 2009 · Supreme Court
48
citing judgments

Expenditure qualifies as 'current repairs' if it maintains existing machinery without replacement, creates no new asset, restores functional efficiency without increasing capacity, and is not an independent unit. Conversely, the cost of replacing machinery, especially independent units, constitutes capital expenditure.

Gyankumar Agarwal (Ind.) v. Assistant Commissioner Income-tax
30 Taxmann.com 114 · 2013 · Reported
46
citing judgments

The burden of proof lies on the assessee to rebut the contents of documents or incriminating material discovered during a search and seizure operation, especially concerning undisclosed income, leveraging presumptions under sections like 132(4A) and 292C.

Lord Thankerton in Hughes v. Bank of New Zealand
6 ITR 636 · 1938 · Reported
44
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is deductible, even if it is unremunerative or does not yield an immediate profit. The absence of a corresponding receipt does not negate the deductibility of such an expense.

CIT v. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd.
306 ITR 182 · 2008 · High Court
40
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred on improvements like flooring, partition, wiring, and false ceiling in existing premises is treated as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure, even if it provides some lasting benefit. Such expenses are deductible if made for efficiently carrying on the business.

Ajai Verma v. CIT
304 ITR 30 · 2008 · High Court
29
citing judgments

If there is prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that Section 9(1)(i) is attracted, that reason alone constitutes a relevant ground to reopen the assessee's assessment.

Judgments citing Section 30(1)

M/S Poddar Finin Consultancy P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1860/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 35DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

case he was not satisfied and refused the application under section 27 of 1922 Act, an appeal the AAC was provided under section 30(1) of 1922 Act. ITA. No.1860/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2012-13 8.6 Hon'ble Court have further observed that By the Amending Act of 1939 an appeal ... other against an order passed under section 27 of 1922 Act (refusing to make a fresh assessment). An assessee may under section 30(1) of 1922 And appeal a an order of refusal to make a fresh assessment under section 27 of 1922 Act but where the ITO has made