← 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)

ITO, Corporate Ward1, Coimbatore vs. Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1734/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1717/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1730/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1733/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1734/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA & Mr.ShreyanshFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)

said that interest income had crystallized in assessee's hands and same could not be held to be income of assessee under section 5(1). The relevant extract of the ruling was extracted as under : “9. Consequently, this Court in agreement with the finding of the two Appellate Authorities below ... interest income had crystallized in the respondent's hands and the same cannot be held to be income of the respondent-assessee under section 5(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 10. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeals

ITO, Corporate Ward1, Coimbatore vs. Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1733/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1717/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1730/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1733/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1734/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA & Mr.ShreyanshFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)

said that interest income had crystallized in assessee's hands and same could not be held to be income of assessee under section 5(1). The relevant extract of the ruling was extracted as under : “9. Consequently, this Court in agreement with the finding of the two Appellate Authorities below ... interest income had crystallized in the respondent's hands and the same cannot be held to be income of the respondent-assessee under section 5(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 10. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeals

ITO, Corporateward1, Coimbatore vs. Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1730/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1717/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1730/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1733/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1734/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA & Mr.ShreyanshFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)

said that interest income had crystallized in assessee's hands and same could not be held to be income of assessee under section 5(1). The relevant extract of the ruling was extracted as under : “9. Consequently, this Court in agreement with the finding of the two Appellate Authorities below ... interest income had crystallized in the respondent's hands and the same cannot be held to be income of the respondent-assessee under section 5(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 10. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeals

ITO, Corporate Ward1, Coimbatore vs. Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1717/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1717/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1730/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1733/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1734/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA & Mr.ShreyanshFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)

said that interest income had crystallized in assessee's hands and same could not be held to be income of assessee under section 5(1). The relevant extract of the ruling was extracted as under : “9. Consequently, this Court in agreement with the finding of the two Appellate Authorities below ... interest income had crystallized in the respondent's hands and the same cannot be held to be income of the respondent-assessee under section 5(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 10. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeals