What is the leading case on Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Britannia Industries Ltd. (280 ITR 525) is the decision most relied on for Section 119(2), cited in 67 judgments. When an assessee has both borrowed funds and sufficient interest-free own funds, and makes interest-free advances, it is presumed that the advances were made from the own funds, and no interest disallowance is made under Section 36(1)(iii) on the borrowed funds.

Which cases are most cited on Section 119(2)?

CIT v. Britannia Industries Ltd. (280 ITR 525) — 67 citing judgments; CIT v. Kotak Mahendra Finance Ltd. (265 ITR 119) — 59 citing judgments; CIT v. Salem Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. (76 Taxmann.com 225) — 8 citing judgments; Little Angels Education Society v. Union of India (127 Taxmann.com 473) — 7 citing judgments; CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (114 Taxmann.com 88) — 4 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 119(2)?

BharatTax indexes 74 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which section of the Income-tax Act, 2025 corresponds to Section 119(2)?

Section 119(2) falls under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 239 (Instructions to subordinate authorities) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Section 119(2) Income Tax Act (2025: s.239) — Case Laws

Indian Ex-Service League(W.B.), Kolkata vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 398/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Indian Ex-Services Ito (Exemption), Ward- League, (W.B.) 1(1), Kolkata. Cp/7/3, Block-Cp, Vs. Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata -700 091. Pan: Aaati 3629 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Amiya Kumar Sahu, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Acit Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee For A.Y. 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre Dated 17.09.2021 U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That The Cit(A) Fails To Understand That The Tax Is Payable On Income Not On Gross Receipts Thus Disallowance Of Revenue Expenditures Pent Is Unlawful, Whimsical Based On Surmises & Thus Order Passed By The Cit(A) Confirming The Assessment Order Is Liable To Be Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Amiya Kumar Sahu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, ACIT

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(1)

The Erode Agricultural Producers Co-Op .Marketing Society Limited, Erode vs. DCIT-CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 541/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra T. Mishra, JCIT

Section 119Section 119(2)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

Vision Foundation, Chennai vs. CIT(A), Delhi

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

ITA 431/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 288

Ig3 Infra Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1406/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Ajeet (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 119(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. The Kalupur Commercial Co-Op Bank Ltd

Appeal stands dismissed

TAXAP/782/2019HC Gujarat06 Jan 2020

Section 119(2)Section 260A

Babulal Mohanraj Jain, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax - I

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 871/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.871/Pun/2014 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Babulal Mohanraj Jain, “Mangal” Plot No.24, Gangadham Soc Phase I, Bibwewadi Kondhwa Road, Pune-411 037 Pan : Aajpj5640G .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei

Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(c)Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80I