Section 115P of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 115P is Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (124 ITR 1), cited in 622 of the 76 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 115P

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT
124 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
622
citing judgments

Expenditure is classified as revenue or capital based on its practical business effect, necessity, or expediency, rather than solely on the juristic classification of rights; an enduring benefit does not automatically make an expenditure capital if it facilitates trading operations or business efficiency.

Synco Industries Ltd. v. Assessing Officer (IT) & Another
299 ITR 444 · 2008 · Supreme Court
82
citing judgments

When computing deductions under Chapter VI-A, such as Section 80IA, losses from other business undertakings must be set off against the profits of the eligible undertaking before calculating the deduction. No deduction under Section 80IA is permissible if the overall 'Profits & Gains of Business or Profession' results in a loss.

Kusum Healthcare (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
62 Taxmann.com 79 · 2015 · High Court
44
citing judgments

Interest cannot be separately charged on outstanding receivables from an associated enterprise if these receivables are an integral part of the underlying international transaction for which the arm's length price has already been determined. Such outstanding receivables are not considered a distinct international transaction.

Vivek Jain v. ACIT
337 ITR 74 · 2011 · High Court
35
citing judgments

If a property is not let out at all, notional income must be computed, and the benefit of section 23(1)(c) (vacancy allowance) cannot be extended. However, section 23(1)(c) can apply to properties let out for two or more years that remain vacant for the entire previous year.

CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd.
86 ITR 549 · 1972 · Supreme Court
31
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred to remove the possibility of recurring disadvantage is not considered a payment made to secure an enduring advantage. Revenue expenditure is operational and intended for the furtherance of the enterprise.

103 Taxman 342/237 ITR 24 (SO; Federation of Andhra Pradesh Chambers of Commerce & Industry v. State of AP
247 ITR 36 · 2001 · Supreme Court
27
citing judgments

Courts and Tribunals cannot grant relief beyond statutory provisions.

114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT
119 ITR 900 · 1979 · High Court
25
citing judgments

The computation of profits for a life insurance business must follow a special, artificial mode prescribed in the First Schedule of the Income Tax Act, rather than the standard method for ordinary assessees.

PCIT v. Oracle (OFSS) BPO Services Ltd.
102 Taxmann.com 396 · 2019 · High Court
17
citing judgments

An assessee is permitted to correct or modify a deduction once claimed under a particular section, as the Income Tax Act does not debar such modifications. The Assessing Officer retains the authority to examine the deduction claim and make necessary additions or disallowances.

1. DIC Fine Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
107 Taxmann.com 213 · 2019 · Reported
17
citing judgments

Failure to furnish Form 56F along with the return of income does not automatically lead to denial of deduction under section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, as the filing of the form is held to be directory in nature.

510 (Karnataka); (vii) PCIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd.
109 Taxmann 93 · 2019 · High Court
13
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 115P

Tinplate Company of India, Kolkata vs. DCIT(CPC), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical

ITA 437/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. The Tinplate Company Of India Limited.......................................………………….............Appellant 4, Bankshall Street Dalhousie Kolkata -700 001 [Pan : Aabct 0129 P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Cpc) Bangalore…….......................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ketav Ved, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 2Nd, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 11Th, 2022 Order Per Girish Agrawal:- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 18/03/2020. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Allowing / Adjudicating The Issue Relating To Short Grant Of Credit For Dividend Distribution Tax Paid (Ddt) Of Inr 84,63,518/-. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Allowing / Adjudicating The Issue Relating To Erroneous Levy Of Interest Under Section 115P Of The Act. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Allowing / Adjudicating The Issue / Additional Ground Relating To Claim For Deduction Of Education Cess Debited In The Books Of Accounts Of The Appellant. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add To Or Alter, By Deletion, Substitution Or Otherwise, Any Or All Of The Above Grounds Of Objections, At Any Time Before Or During The Hearing Of The Appeal. 5. The Appellant Submits That The Above Grounds Are Independent & Without Prejudice To One Another.

Section 10(4)Section 115PSection 40

Excel Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. The CIT -CC-6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 238/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleexcel Industries Ltd Vs. The Cit-Cc 6(3) 184-87, Excel Estate, 19Th Floor, Air India Sv Road, Jogeshwari Bldg, Nariman Point, (West)Mumbai – 400102 Mumbai – 400 021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace2488F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Kirit Kamdar. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Ajay Kumar. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs. 1,00,50,000/- Out Of Interest Paid Attributable To Loan To A Subsidiary. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Levying An Amount Of Rs. 5,42,910/- On Account Excel Industries Ltd, Mumbai. Of Interest U/S 115P For Dividend Distributed Under Section 115-O, For Which Dividend Distribution Tax Had Already Been Paid. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground On Additions Made To Book Profits U/S 115Jb.

For Appellant: Mr.Kirit Kamdar. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Ajay Kumar. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)