← All Phrases

“Section 5(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 5Section 5(1)2,233 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 5(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 5(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

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.

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises
298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court
706
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

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.

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT
288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court
394
citing judgments

Income from offshore supply of goods and services is not taxable in India if the entire transaction, including transfer of ownership and payments, occurs outside India.

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)
315 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court
363
citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.

Judgments citing Section 5(1)

Sahakarmaharshi Bhausaheb Thorat Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1653/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1653/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sahakarmaharshi Bhausaheb V The Deputy Thorat Ssk Ltd., S Commissioner Of At Amrutnagar, P.O.Sangamner, Income Tax, Circle, Tal.Sangamner, Ahmednagar. Dist.Ahmednagar, Maharashtra – 422608. Pan: Aaaas3893G Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mihir M. Bapat – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Add.Commissioner Of Income Tax/Jcit(A)-8, Delhi U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 15.06.2024 For A.Y.2017-18. “1. The A.O. Has Erred In Adding To Income Of Rs.15,54,94,967/- Being Excess Sugar Cane Price Paid To Members & Non Members. The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Be Deleted.

Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(xvii)Section 4Section 5(1)Section 5(3)

hereinafter referred to as "FRP") decided by the Central Government under the provisions of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, on revenue sharing basis." Section 5(1) of the Act reads as under ITA No.1653/PUN/2024 [A] 5. Payment to Sugarcane growers. - (1) As soon as the Sugarcane is supplied