← All Phrases

“Section 4(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 4Section 4(1)134 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 4(1) is Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (431 ITR 1), cited in 999 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 4(1)

Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
431 ITR 1 · 2021 · Supreme Court
999
citing judgments

Section 80P(4) serves as a proviso to Section 80P(1) and (2), excluding only cooperative banks that are cooperative societies and possess an RBI license for banking business. Its purpose is to exclude cooperative banks operating like commercial banks that lend money to the public.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
953
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. v. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society
392 ITR 74 · 2017 · High Court
762
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments or surplus deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan
263 ITR 706 · 2003 · Supreme Court
691
citing judgments

A citizen is free to carry on business within the law, and mere tax planning without a motive to evade taxes through colorable devices is not frowned upon. The liability to taxation, for the purpose of tax treaty application, is a legal situation, not the fiscal fact of actual payment.

Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
91 ITR 18 · 1973 · Supreme Court
666
citing judgments

Admissions, whether made through entries in account books or statements, are important pieces of evidence but are not conclusive. An assessee has the right to demonstrate that an admission made by them is incorrect or can be retracted.

Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
384 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
631
citing judgments

Co-operative banks are not fundamentally different from co-operative societies, entitling them to claim deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including for interest income treated as business income.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal
290 CTR 263 · 2016 · High Court
583
citing judgments

Assessment based solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act requires the statement to be relatable to incriminating material or evidence found during the search, especially when considering Section 158BB(1) which restricts computation of undisclosed income to evidence found during search.

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son
352 ITR 480 · 2013 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

Statements recorded during a survey under Section 133A do not have evidentiary value as Section 133A does not empower examination on oath. Consequently, additions to income cannot be made solely based on such uncorroborated statements without other credible evidence.

Judgments citing Section 4(1)

Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal, Rajkot, Gujarat vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 552/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 250Section 56

annum additional amount on the market value for a period commencing on or from the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the 1894 Act up to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever

Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan, Thiruvalla vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 770/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan .......... Appellant Valuzhathil House, Kozhuvalloor, Thiruvalla [Pan: Akaps3606C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Stephen George, Ar Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Noida [Cit(A)] Dated 25.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Non-Resident Indian. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Filed By The Appellant. The Dcit (International Taxation) Lkn (Hereinafter Called "The Ao"), Based On The Information That The Appellant Made Term Deposits In Bank & Earned Interest Income Of Deposits, Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, The 2 Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan Ao Issued A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act After Duly Complying The Provisions Of Section 148(A) Of The Act. In Response To The Notice U/S. 148, The Appellant Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 On 30.08.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2,44,870/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ao Vide Order Dated 26.05.2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Act At Total Income Of Rs. 35,01,948/-. While Doing So, The Ao Brought To Tax The Income Of Salary Of Rs. 32,57,078/-.

For Appellant: Shri Stephen George, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 4(1)(a)

best "treated as having been received" which is neither "received" nor "deemed to be received" and therefore not within the purview of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act. It is true that the words used in section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act relate to the first receipt after ... which had been sold and delivered by the company to them 5 Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan and they were received within the meaning of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act by these several parties on behalf of the assessee in British India at the time when these payments were made

Mohammed Kutty Pudukkudi, Malappuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 774/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mohammed Kutty Pudukkudi .......... Appellant 4/61, Pudukkudi House, Ponmundam P.O. (Via) Tirur 676106 [Pan: Afepp4646J] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

best "treated as having been received" which is neither "received" nor "deemed to be received" and therefore not within the purview of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act. It is true that the words used in section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act relate to the first receipt after ... proceeds of the goods which had been sold and delivered by the company to them and they were received within the meaning of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act by these several parties on behalf of the assessee in British India at the time when these payments were made

Waterworld Tourism Company Private Limited, Alappuzha vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 726/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Water World Tourism Company Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Room No. 18, Municipal Shopping Centre Zilla Court Ward, Opp. Boat Jetty Thathampally S.O., Alappuzha 688013 [Pan: Aabcm3387L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1& Tps, Alappuzha ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Thomas Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

best "treated as having been received" which is neither "received" nor "deemed to be received" and therefore not within the purview of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act. It is true that the words used in section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act relate to the first receipt after ... proceeds of the goods which had been sold and delivered by the company to them and they were received within the meaning of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act by these several parties on behalf of the assessee in British India at the time when these payments were made

Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakaria, Jetpur vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 156/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya Vs. Ito, Wd 1(2)(1), Rajkot Plot No. 82 Satyam Park, Amarnagar Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Jetpur,(Rajkot-Gujarat) -360370 Road, Rajkot 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agnps7407C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250Section 28

annum additional amount on the market value for a period commencing on or from the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the 1894 Act up to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever

Excellence Finance Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are

ITA 208/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

since we are not upholding and applying the ex -factory prices, as we find them contravened and not normal price as envisaged under section 4(1), we find no reason to disturb the Commissioner's orders. On appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that the failure

Excellence Finance Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are

ITA 207/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

since we are not upholding and applying the ex -factory prices, as we find them contravened and not normal price as envisaged under section 4(1), we find no reason to disturb the Commissioner's orders. On appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that the failure

Excellence Finance Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are

ITA 206/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

since we are not upholding and applying the ex -factory prices, as we find them contravened and not normal price as envisaged under section 4(1), we find no reason to disturb the Commissioner's orders. On appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that the failure

Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

purview of that definition must satisfy two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the ' total amount of income, profits and gains referred to in Section 4(1)'. Secondly, it must be 'computed in the manner laid down in the Act'. If either of these conditions fails, the income will ... purview of that definition must satisfy two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the ' total amount of income, profits and gains referred to in section 4(1)'. Secondly, it must be 'computed in the manner laid down in the Act'. If either of these conditions fails, the income will

Paras and Shubham Chaudhary Legal Heir of Kanhaiya Lal, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward 2, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1236/CHANDI/2016[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Rishab Gupta & Shri Mukesh Aggarwal,CAsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 10(37)Section 18Section 28Section 4Section 5

annum additional amount on the market value for a period commencing on or from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act upto the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier ... annum on the market value of the land for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) to the date of the award of the Collector or to the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. In other

Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya, Rajkot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.318/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya The Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम At Khajuri Gundala Income Tax-1, Rajkot. Post Station: Vavdi Vs. Amarnagar, Khajuri Gundala. Pan : Aslps 7027 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 263

annumadditional amount on the market value for a period commencing on or from the date of publication of thenotification under section 4(1) of the 1894 Act up to the date of the award of the Collector or the date oftaking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. The court

Chandra Bros., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 37(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1572/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 145(2)Section 250Section 44A

referred assumed that the said sum was correctly computed and put in issue only its assessability in law on a true construction of section 4(1)(b) and section 14(2)(c) of the 1922 Act. Again, it was a misconception to think that any profit "arises

Sanjay Taneja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1643/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Shri Sanjay Taneja, Vs Acit, 198/1, Ramesh Market, Central Circle-18, East Of Kailash, Delhi New Delhi-110065. Pan-Aaept8805A Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Mohit Chaudhary, Ca, Harish, Ca, Neetu Jain, Ca & Mitika Chaudhary, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2025 Order

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 69A

levying tax on the basis of a seized document. 13. Section 4 relates to charge of Income-tax. It reads as under: Section 4(1) Where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any assessment year at any rate or rates, income- tax at that rate

Jypore Manufacturing Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Life Care Hospital, Sirohi vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 938/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

derived. Section 3 of the Act provides, inter alia, that income-tax shall be charged on the total income of every company. Under section 4(1), total income includes all income, profits or gains from whatever source derived, subject to certain conditions about residence, etc., with which ... derived. Section 3 of the Act provides, inter alia, that income-tax shall be charged on the total income of every company. Under section 4(1), total income includes all income, profits or gains from whatever source derived, subject to certain conditions about residence, etc., with which

Sanjivani Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahkari Pat Sanstha, Bhandara vs. ITO Ward-2, Bhandara

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 198/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Chandraprakash BhutadaFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 250Section 292BSection 4(1)Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

Impermissible Addition to Safeguard Revenue The CIT(A)'s justification of the 10% addition to safeguard the interests of revenue" is ultra vires: Section 4(1) limits taxation to "income": ""Income-tax shall be charged... in respect of the total income of the previous year. Notional additions for revenue protection

State Bank of India (Earlier Known As Sbbj), Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS), Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 173/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Mrs. Apeksha Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 142Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)Section 292BSection 5

relevant to note that the tax is payable by the person who enjoyed the income. Section 4 is the charging section. Under section 4(1), the total income for the previous year is chargeable to tax. Section 4(2), inter alia, provides that in respect of income chargeable under

Hemant Gordhanbhai Patel, Nadiad vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn., Vadodara

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1684/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 69

best "treated as having been received" which is neither "received" nor "deemed to be received" and therefore not within the purview of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act. It is true that the words used in section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act relate to the first receipt after ... proceeds of the goods which had been sold and delivered by the company to them and they were received within the meaning of section 4(1)(a) of 1922 Act by these several parties on behalf of the assessee in British India at the time when these payments were made

Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 286/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 32

income nor any equitable considerations can make any difference to the position which rests entirely on a strict interpretation of the provisions of section 4(1) (a) of the 1922 Act. - 20 - ITA Nos.283 to 286/Chny/2025 Income may accrue to an assessee without the actual receipt of the same

Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 285/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 32

income nor any equitable considerations can make any difference to the position which rests entirely on a strict interpretation of the provisions of section 4(1) (a) of the 1922 Act. - 20 - ITA Nos.283 to 286/Chny/2025 Income may accrue to an assessee without the actual receipt of the same