Section 145(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.276

Section 145(1) falls under section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 276 (Method of accounting) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 276 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 145(1) is CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga (201 ITR 995), cited in 40 of the 103 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 145(1)

CIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga
201 ITR 995 · 1993 · High Court
40
citing judgments

Registration of a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act is not a prerequisite for claiming depreciation under the Income Tax Act. Beneficial ownership and actual use for business purposes are sufficient.

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. ACIT
38 SOT 553 · 2010 · ITAT
37
citing judgments

Amortization of premium on purchase of government securities is allowable as a deduction if it is in line with RBI's prudential norms and the assessee follows a consistent accounting system.

CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.
257 ITR 88 · 2002 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Depreciation on a vehicle cannot be denied solely because the transfer was not recorded under the Motor Vehicles Act or the vehicle stood in the vendor's name in official records, if the assessee can establish ownership.

Prestige Estate Projects (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
33 DTR 514 · 2010 · ITAT
28
citing judgments

A real estate developer adopting the completed contract method of accounting cannot be forced to follow the percentage completion method under AS-7 if AS-7 has not been specified by the Central Government under section 145(2). The Assessing Officer cannot reject accounts under section 145(3) solely on this ground.

86 Taxmann.com 137 (SC) 16. K. Venkataramaiah v. A. Setharam Reddy & Ors., 1963 AIR 1526 17. ITO vs. B.N. Bhattacharya
112 ITR 423 · 1978 · High Court
27
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer can admit additional evidence during assessment proceedings if it is necessary to determine the true total income of the assessee.

CIT v. Hughes
215 Taxmann 136 · 2013 · High Court
20
citing judgments
CIT v. Realest Builders & Services Ltd. 216 CTR (SC) 345
382 ITR 630 · 2016 · High Court
20
citing judgments
CIT v. Federal Bank
301 ITR 188 · 2008 · High Court
19
citing judgments

Interest on securities becomes due and receivable only upon maturity and cannot be taxed prior to maturity. The entitlement to interest arises only at that point.

Kannur District Cooperative Bank v. CIT
365 ITR 343 · 2014 · High Court
19
citing judgments

Cooperative banks are eligible to claim deduction under both limbs of Section 36(1)(viia) for all types of loans and advances extended by their rural branches.

Munjal Showa Ltd. v. DCIT
94 TTJ 227 · 2005 · ITAT
18
citing judgments

Foreign currency, and therefore derivative/forward contracts in respect of foreign currency, cannot be considered a commodity for the purpose of speculative transaction provisions. Such contracts entered into for hedging foreign exchange fluctuations are not speculative.

Judgments on Section 145(1)

Sunil Kumar Chopra, Delhi vs. ITO-Ward-43(6), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3813/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalsh. Viren Chopra Legal Heir Of Late Income Tax Officer, Sh. Sunil Kumar Chopra, Ward-43(6), Np-5, Pitampura, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110034. Pan-Aaepc9922H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.K. Gupta, Ca Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansara, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Cit(A)’ In Short] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-15/10634/2019-20 Dated 29.09.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2017-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of General Merchant. The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Total Income At Rs.17,90,650/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny For The Reason (1) Sh. Viren Chopra L/H Late Sunil Kr. Chopra Vs. Ito Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period (2) Custom Duty Paid & (3)Sales Turnover/Receipts. Accordingly, Statutory Noticed Under Section 143(3) Was Issued On 25.09.2018 Followed By Notices U/S 142 Along With Questionnaires Issued From Time To Time. The Ld. Ao Asked The Assessee To Explain The Source Of Cash Deposited, Reconciliation Of The Sales Made Vis-A-Vis Declaring In Gst Return. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Ao Held That The Cash Deposited Of Rs. 1.00 Cr. In The Bank Account During The Demonetization Period In Sbn As Unexplained Credit U/S 68 Of The Act & Made The Addition For The Same & Further Invoked The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe For Charging Special Rate Of Tax.

Section 115BSection 142Section 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 250Section 68

Commercial Transport Organisation, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 27(1), Mumbai, Vashi, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4965/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Commercial Transport Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Organisation Income Tax - 27(1), 1St Floor, B 112, Navi Mumbai Arjun Centre, Govandi East, Mumbai - 400088 (Pan: Aagfc6565J) Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee By : Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077843575(1), Dated 26.06.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit, 27(1), Mumbai U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Hon Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.1,07,12,240/- Made By The Ld Ao, As Estimated Income, After Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The I.T Act 1961. The Addition Of Rs.1,07,12,240/- Being Not Warranted By Facts & In Law May Kindly Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(3)