Section 140A of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 140A is CIT v. Intel Technology India (P.) Ltd. (380 ITR 272), cited in 45 of the 41 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 140A

CIT v. Intel Technology India (P.) Ltd.
380 ITR 272 · 2016 · High Court
45
citing judgments

When an amalgamating company ceases to exist due to a scheme of arrangement or merger, any subsequent assessment or action under the Income-tax Act initiated against that non-existent entity is void ab initio, as it is not a 'person' under Section 2(31).

Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. v. CIT
68 ITR 486 · 1968 · Supreme Court
36
citing judgments

Transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares constitute trading activity if the interest paid on borrowed funds for such purchases exceeds the return generated from the shares, indicating that the interest payments are commensurate with the share returns.

Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT
73 ITR 652 · 1969 · Supreme Court
26
citing judgments

Bonus shares received by a dealer in shares constitute a capital asset unless specifically converted into stock-in-trade. The sale of such bonus shares attracts capital gains tax.

CIT v. Sutlej Industries Ltd.
325 ITR 331 · 2010 · High Court
20
citing judgments
CIT v. HEG
294 ITR 438 · 2007 · High Court
13
citing judgments
Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT
53 Taxmann.com 106 · 2015 · High Court
13
citing judgments
S. Kumar Enterprises (Synfabs) Ltd. v. JCIT
170 TTJ 37 · 2015 · ITAT
12
citing judgments
Maya Debi Bansal v. CIT
117 ITR 125 · 1979 · High Court
11
citing judgments
Sandvik Asia Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
2 SCC 508 · 2006 · Reported
10
citing judgments
Sky Light Hospitality v. ACIT
259 Taxmann 390 · Supreme Court
9
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 140A

DINESH CHAND JAIN,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 692/LKW/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Dinesh Chand Jain, Vs. Dy. Cit, 7/189, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur- Central Circle-1, Kanpur 280002, U.P. Pan: Adbpj2732Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.04.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1.1 Because The Id. "Cit(A)" Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Withdrawing The Refund Of Interest Amounting To Rs. 8,20,163/-, Paid To The Assessee U/S 244A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On Excess Amount Of Self-Assessment Tax Paid U/S 140A Of The Act. 1.2 Because The View Taken By Id. "Cit(A)" While Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer Is Based On Misinterpretation Of The Provisions Of Clause (B) Of Sub-Section (1) Of Section 244A Of The Act, As Applicable At The Relevant Point Of Time. 2. Because, In Any Case & Without Prejudice To The Grounds Hereinfore, While Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Withdrawing The Interest Paid To The Assessee U/S 244A Of The Act, The Ld. "Cit(A)" Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Of Payment Of Interest On Excess Amount Paid U/S 140A Was Debatable In Nature & It Could Not Have Been Decided By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 154 Of The Act As The Same Did Not Constitute A Mistake Apparent From The Record.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add CIT DR
Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 240Section 244Section 244ASection 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(1)(b)

Showing 120 of 41 · Page 1 of 3