← All Phrases

“Section 3(29)”

Section References (mined)Section 3Section 3(29)3 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 3(29) is CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (53 ITR 140), cited in 201 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 3(29)

CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.
53 ITR 140 · 1964 · Supreme Court
201
citing judgments

The expression "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than "for the purpose of earning profits" and encompasses expenditures made for commercial expediency, business preservation, administration, and modernization.

CIT v. Citi Financial Consumer Finance Ltd.
335 ITR 29 · 2011 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Customer acquisition costs and advertisement expenditures are treated as revenue expenditures, not deferred expenditures, as there is no general concept of deferred expenditure for such items under Income Tax Law.

CIT v. Motors & General Stores
66 ITR 692 · 1967 · Supreme Court
66
citing judgments

Income tax authorities cannot deduce the nature of a document from purported intention, go behind the document, consider the substance over form, or rewrite it merely to suit the revenue's purpose.

Bawa Shiv Charan Singh v. CIT
149 ITR 29 · 1984 · High Court
45
citing judgments

If the cost of acquisition for tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received from the surrender of such tenancy rights is not subject to capital gains tax.

Tek Ram v. CIT
357 ITR 133 · 2013 · Supreme Court
44
citing judgments

When relevant documents or additional evidence have a direct bearing on an issue, they may be allowed to be produced or admitted at the appellate stage, potentially leading to a de novo adjudication by the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

Param Anand Builders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
59 ITD 29 · 1996 · ITAT
36
citing judgments

A retraction of a statement made during a search or survey is not valid if the assessee cannot prove it was made under threat or coercion, especially when independent witnesses were present.

Bawa Shiv Charan Singh v. CIT (1984) 149 ITR 29 (Delhi); CIT v. Mangtu Ram Jaipuria
201 ITR 894 · 1993 · High Court
35
citing judgments

Consideration received on surrender of tenancy rights is not subject to capital gains tax if the cost of acquisition of such rights cannot be determined.

CIT v. Doom Dooma India Ltd.
310 ITR 392 · 2009 · Supreme Court
30
citing judgments

The 'written down value' (WDV) under Section 43(6)(b) is determined by depreciation that has been 'actually allowed', meaning it has been taken into account or granted and given effect to by the Income-tax Officer in computing taxable income.

Judgments citing Section 3(29)