← All Phrases

“Section 31(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 31Section 31(1)114 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 31(1) is Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction (126 Taxmann.com 132), cited in 192 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 31(1)

Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction
126 Taxmann.com 132 · 2021 · Supreme Court
192
citing judgments

Once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31(1) of the IBC, claims not included in the plan are extinguished and cannot be pursued. This applies to statutory dues owed to the government and other authorities.

Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
31 ITR 28 · 1957 · Supreme Court
137
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for commercial expediency, even without a direct or immediate benefit but indirectly facilitating business, is deductible as laid out wholly and exclusively for trade. The scope of reference jurisdiction under Section 66 is limited to questions of law, allowing challenges to Tribunal findings of fact only if they are perverse, unreasonable, or lack evidence.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India
282 ITR 273 · 2006 · Supreme Court
136
citing judgments

The rule of consistency requires that in the absence of any change in material facts or law, a different view or decision on an issue cannot be adopted for subsequent assessment years, thus ensuring uniformity in tax assessments.

Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain
31 ITR 872 · 1957 · High Court
103
citing judgments

The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' under the Income Tax Act includes instances where there is a loss of tax.

PCIT v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd.
409 ITR 545 · 2018 · High Court
84
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer is bound by the rule of consistency and cannot take a contrary or different stand on an issue in a subsequent assessment year if the factual position remains identical to previous years where a deduction was allowed.

Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector
224 ITR 551 · 1997 · Supreme Court
75
citing judgments

Interest received as income on delayed payment of compensation under Sections 28 or 31 of the Land Acquisition Act is a taxable revenue receipt, chargeable to income tax under the head 'income from other sources'.

(1) DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd.
251 ITR 61 · 2001 · High Court
49
citing judgments

Interest paid on money borrowed for acquiring machinery is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) even if the machinery is not put to use in the year of borrowing. This principle applies to the 'for the purpose of business' test for borrowed capital.

CIT v. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills (P) Ltd.
315 ITR 114 · 2009 · Supreme Court
48
citing judgments

Expenditure qualifies as 'current repairs' if it maintains existing machinery without replacement, creates no new asset, restores functional efficiency without increasing capacity, and is not an independent unit. Conversely, the cost of replacing machinery, especially independent units, constitutes capital expenditure.

Judgments citing Section 31(1)

Aircel Celllular Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Cricle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1605/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1602, 1603, 1604 & 1605/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2012-2013, 2013-14 & 2017-2018 Aircel Cellular Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income 769, Spencer Plaza, Vs. Tax, Mount Road, Corporate Circle 1(1) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. Pan: Aaacr 5136R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. V. Nandakumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2006-2007, Dated27.10.2023

For Appellant: Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 260Section 30Section 31(1)

sanctioned before the Income Tax authorities, who can consider the said documents and take appropriate decision under the provisions of law." As per section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: "If the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan as approved by the committee of creditors

Aircel Cellular Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1604/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1602, 1603, 1604 & 1605/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2012-2013, 2013-14 & 2017-2018 Aircel Cellular Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income 769, Spencer Plaza, Vs. Tax, Mount Road, Corporate Circle 1(1) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. Pan: Aaacr 5136R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. V. Nandakumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2006-2007, Dated27.10.2023

For Appellant: Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 260Section 30Section 31(1)

sanctioned before the Income Tax authorities, who can consider the said documents and take appropriate decision under the provisions of law." As per section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: "If the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan as approved by the committee of creditors

Aircel Cellular Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1603/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1602, 1603, 1604 & 1605/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2012-2013, 2013-14 & 2017-2018 Aircel Cellular Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income 769, Spencer Plaza, Vs. Tax, Mount Road, Corporate Circle 1(1) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. Pan: Aaacr 5136R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. V. Nandakumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2006-2007, Dated27.10.2023

For Appellant: Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 260Section 30Section 31(1)

sanctioned before the Income Tax authorities, who can consider the said documents and take appropriate decision under the provisions of law." As per section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: "If the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan as approved by the committee of creditors

Aircel Cellular Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1602/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1602, 1603, 1604 & 1605/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2012-2013, 2013-14 & 2017-2018 Aircel Cellular Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income 769, Spencer Plaza, Vs. Tax, Mount Road, Corporate Circle 1(1) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. Pan: Aaacr 5136R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. V. Nandakumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2006-2007, Dated27.10.2023

For Appellant: Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 260Section 30Section 31(1)

sanctioned before the Income Tax authorities, who can consider the said documents and take appropriate decision under the provisions of law." As per section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: "If the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan as approved by the committee of creditors