← All Phrases

“Section 254(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 254Section 254(1)1,469 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 254(1) is CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 254), cited in 968 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 254(1)

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.
305 ITR 227 · 2008 · Supreme Court
470
citing judgments

Non-consideration of a decision by a jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. However, non-consideration of a non-jurisdictional High Court decision does not typically amount to such a mistake.

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT
332 ITR 340 · 2011 · High Court
359
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.

CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.
306 ITR 42 · 2008 · High Court
349
citing judgments

An assessee can make an additional claim for deduction or file a revised computation of income during assessment proceedings, even if a revised return of income has not been filed. Such additional claims or grounds can also be admitted at the appellate stage.

CIT v. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd.
103 Taxmann.com 57 · 2019 · Supreme Court
306
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that the issue of payment of excessive price on purchase of sugarcane by assesses is no longer res integra. The court elaborately dealt with this issue.

Bangalore Club v. CIT
350 ITR 509 · 2013 · Supreme Court
247
citing judgments

The Supreme Court affirmed the doctrine of mutuality, holding that contributions received from and returned to members for a common purpose do not constitute taxable profits. However, income from transactions with non-members or interest earned from investments in external entities (like cooperative banks) may break the mutuality chain and be taxable under Section 56, falling outside the scope of Section 80P deductions.

CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd.
233 ITR 468 · 1998 · Supreme Court
246
citing judgments

Expenditure providing an enduring advantage, such as upfront lease rent for land, is revenue expenditure if no capital asset is acquired or generated, allowing for deduction under Section 37, even when capitalized in the books of account.

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT
27 ITR 34 · 1955 · Supreme Court
174
citing judgments

The Supreme Court established the foundational test for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure, holding that the aim and object of the expenditure and whether it brings into existence an asset or an advantage of an enduring nature determines its character, irrespective of the payment method. An advantage lasting five years or more can be considered enduring.

Judgments citing Section 254(1)

Javaharlal S Dhariwal, Surat vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 203/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.203/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Javaharlal S Dhariwal Income Tax Officer, 886 Old Gidc, Nr. Bank Of Ward-1(2)(2), Surat-395001 Vs Baroda, Katargam, Surat- 395004 Pan No: Aaypd 4207 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mahul Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 28.04.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat [For Short To As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 30.01.2020 For Assessment Year 2013- 14, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Income-Tax Officer-Ward-1(2)(2), Surat/Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.02.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making A Disallowance Of Rs.3,45,378/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. Javaharlal S Dhariwal 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Partly Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer By Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.2,46,915/- Out Of Total Disallowance Of Rs.4,93,830/- On Account Of Machinery Salary Expenses. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.3,95,466/- Being Interest Expenses Claimed U/S 57 Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 254(1)Section 40Section 57

Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 02.02.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of 28.04.2023 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income

Jinesh Rameshchandra Sheth, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Bharuch

In the result, ground No. of the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 513/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.513/Srt/2019 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Jinesh Rameshchandra Income Tax Officer, Sheth, 72, Princess Street, Ward-2(2), Bharuch, Vs Chapsey Building, Room Bharuch-392001 No.35, 3Rd Floor, Mumbai- 400002 Pan No: Ahzps 5778 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajiv Chanda, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23.02.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 28.04.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara [For Short To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 02.08.2019 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Officer-Ward-2(2), Bharuch /Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.03.2015. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “ Jinesh R Sheth “I. Addition On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 – Rs.21,57,500/-: 1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.21,57,500/- To The Income Of The Assessee By Confirming The Following Amounts As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act. Name Relationship Pan Amount 1 Shri Chimanlal Sheth Grand Father Bcaps7685D 11,50,000/- 2 Utkarsh V Sheth Nephew Cxbps0158K 25,000/- 3 Medha Sheth Wife Bawps2706J 3,99,500/- 4 Chintak Sheth Son-17 Yr. Cwfps3715P 4,82,000/- 5 V R Sheth Brother Ahzps5785J 1,01,000/- Sub Total: 21,57,500/-

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 23.02.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of 28.04.2023 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income