← All Phrases

“Section 25(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 25Section 25(1)(a)1 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 25(1)(a) is Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (58 ITD 428), cited in 430 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 25(1)(a)

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
58 ITD 428 · 1996 · ITAT
430
citing judgments

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT
265 ITR 25 · 2004 · High Court
151
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not automatically imposed upon an assessee's failure to contest a quantum addition or if two views are possible; the Assessing Officer must prove the charge of concealment or inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, an Assessing Officer can disallow a claim during assessment if it is patently false on examination of facts.

CIT v. Chetan Dass Lachman Dass
25 Taxmann.com 227 · 2012 · High Court
109
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A of the Income-tax Act is not solely restricted to the evidence found during the search; the Assessing Officer can also consider other post-search material or information available that relates to the search evidence.

ACIT v. Progressive Constructions Ltd.
92 Taxmann.com 104 · 2018 · ITAT
63
citing judgments

Rights acquired under a concession agreement for highway construction, which generate revenue through toll collections, constitute an 'intangible asset' under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, eligible for depreciation, typically at 25%. This includes claiming depreciation on the opening Written Down Value (WDV) for such highway projects.

Sonic Biochem Extractions (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (
25 Taxmann.com 25 · 2012 · ITAT
63
citing judgments

Prior to the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. on October 15, 2011, the purchase of off-the-shelf software was not subject to TDS, and therefore, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) or 40(a)(ia) could be made.

Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. ITO
90 DTR 289 · 2013 · High Court
61
citing judgments

When a return is filed or deemed filed in response to a Section 148 reassessment notice, issuing a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory if the Assessing Officer finds issues needing explanation; failure to do so renders the assessment invalid.

CIT v. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre (P.) Ltd.
344 ITR 476 · 2012 · High Court
58
citing judgments

Payment of commission to doctors for referring patients to diagnostic centers or providing gifts, freebies, or hospitality to medical practitioners by pharmaceutical companies is against public policy and cannot be allowed as a business expenditure under Section 37(1). Demanding such benefits is unethical on the part of doctors, and paying them is equally unethical on the part of companies.

ACIT v. A.L.N. Rao Charitable Trust
216 ITR 697 · 1995 · Supreme Court
58
citing judgments

The exemption for income accumulated under section 11(1)(a) (presently 15%) is absolute, and section 11(2) does not restrict its operation or require such accumulated income to be invested in specified securities. Investment requirements under section 11(2) apply only to accumulation beyond this absolute exemption limit.

Judgments citing Section 25(1)(a)