← All Phrases

“Section 2(1)(j)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 2(1)(j) is Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (118 ITR 261), cited in 323 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(1)(j)

Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
118 ITR 261 · 1979 · Supreme Court
323
citing judgments

An expense incurred by an assessee for its own business, such as advertising, marketing, and promotional (AMP) expenses, cannot be disallowed merely because it incidentally or indirectly benefits the assessee's sister concerns or associated enterprises.

CIT v. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja
302 ITR 63 · 2008 · High Court
147
citing judgments

When unaccounted receipts or suppressed sales are detected and books of account are rejected under Section 145(3), additions to income must be restricted to the profit element embedded in such transactions, not the entire transaction value. This profit element is to be estimated by considering the assessee's regular profit ratio as per books of account.

CIT v. Manjula J. Shah
355 ITR 474 · 2013 · High Court
113
citing judgments

For capital assets acquired by gift or will, the indexed cost of acquisition under Section 48 is computed with reference to the year the previous owner first held the asset. The period of holding for determining if an asset is long-term also includes the previous owner's holding period, as per Section 2(42A).

CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd.
55 ITR 741 · 1965 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments

A taxing statute must be strictly construed: the subject is not to be taxed unless the charging provision clearly and explicitly imposes the obligation, without room for intendment or implication. There is no equity about a tax, and nothing is to be read into or implied within the language used.

CIT v. Siddharth J Desai
139 ITR 628 · 1983 · High Court
45
citing judgments

This case lays down 13 specific tests and factors for determining whether land qualifies as agricultural land under the Income-tax Act. It holds that obtaining permission to sell agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes shortly before the sale does not automatically alter its agricultural character.

CTO v. Swastik Roadways
3 SCC 640 · 2004 · Reported
36
citing judgments

The rigours of Section 40A(3) should not be invoked without examining the genuineness of the transactions and whether they were free from tax evasion, as the consequences for non-compliance must have a nexus to the object of preventing tax evasion.

J. K. Woolen Mills v. CIT
86 ITR 11 · 1972 · Supreme Court
33
citing judgments

Business expenditure is deductible even if the business has not yet commenced, provided it is incurred for the purpose of setting up the business. The commercial expediency of a businessman's decision regarding payment quantum is generally respected.

Harshad J.Choksi v. CIT, Bombay City- VII
25 Taxmann.com 567 · 2012 · High Court
31
citing judgments

The conditions for claiming a bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) are not fulfilled if the assessee fails to provide details of the parties associated with the debts or evidence that these amounts were offered to tax in earlier years. An alternate claim for loss under Section 28 is denied without evidence substantiating the loss in the relevant assessment year.

Judgments citing Section 2(1)(j)