← All Phrases

“Section 30(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 30Section 30(3)1 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 30(3) is Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (37 ITR 66), cited in 206 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 30(3)

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.

Shri Mohd. Ayub v. ITO
346 ITR 30 · 2012 · Reported
98
citing judgments

Each assessment year is an independent unit for income-tax purposes, requiring the issuance of a separate notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act for a valid reassessment. Failure to issue such separate notices renders the assessment invalid.

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.

New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT
30 ITR 338 · 1956 · High Court
45
citing judgments

This case lays down a crucial test to distinguish between revenue expenditure (current repairs) and capital expenditure. Expenditure is considered revenue if its object is to preserve and maintain an existing asset without bringing a new asset into existence or obtaining a new or fresh advantage.

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.

Judgments citing Section 30(3)

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Shri Mohammed Dawood Sultan Abdul Kadar, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 25/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.25/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mohamed Dawood Sultan Abdul Income Tax, Circle 2, Kader, Kolikalpalayam, Thiruvarur, Trichy. Tamil Nadu 610 001. [Pan:Brdps5653L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sankaralingam, Cit (Retd.) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 23.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Land Acquisition Compensation Under Compulsory Acquisition By The Government Is Exempt Or Not.

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sankaralingam, CIT (Retd.)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक