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)

Mahindra Telecommunications Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2832/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mahindra Telecommunications Income Tax Officer, 2(2)(3), बनाम/ Investment Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3774 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. P. Mahajani ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.1.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 30.12.2010. 2. The Background Facts The Facts Of The Case Are Simple & Undisputed. The Assessee-Company, Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Pursuant To A Shareholders’ Agreement Dated March

For Appellant: Shri H. P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta
Section 143(3)