What is the leading case on Section 164(1) of the Income Tax Act?

U.P. Forest Corporation v. DCIT (165 Taxmann 533) is the decision most relied on for Section 164(1), cited in 10 judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 164(1)?

BharatTax indexes 70 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 164(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 164(1) of the Income Tax Act

Q: Which cases are most cited on Section 164(1)?

U.P. Forest Corporation v. DCIT (165 Taxmann 533) — 10 citing judgments; 266 (Chennai-Trib.). 10. Effluent & Water Treatment Engineers (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (140 Taxmann.com 420) — 3 citing judgments.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.307

Section 164(1) falls under section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 307 (Charge of tax where share of beneficiaries unknown) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 307 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 164(1) is U.P. Forest Corporation v. DCIT (165 Taxmann 533), cited in 10 of the 70 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 164(1)

U.P. Forest Corporation v. DCIT

165 Taxmann 533 · 2007 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

266 (Chennai-Trib.). 10. Effluent & Water Treatment Engineers (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

140 Taxmann.com 420 · 2022 · ITAT

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 164(1)

M/S. Anish Kumar Female Child Trust, Chennai vs. ACIT, Bangalore

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 2178/CHNY/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2016AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2177 & 2185/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14

Section 143(1)Section 164(1)

M/S. Anish Kumar Education Trust, Chennai vs. ACIT, Bangalore

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 2177/CHNY/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2016AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2177 & 2185/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14

Section 143(1)Section 164(1)

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Icici Emerging Sector Fund, Bangalore

In the result, all the thirteen appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 505/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri S.E.Dastur, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neera Malhotra, CIT &

Section 199

Gupta Family Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 4503/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Miss Shabana Parveen

Section 160Section 160(1)(iv)Section 161Section 161(1)Section 164Section 164(1)Section 166Section 24

ITO WD 19(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Milestone Army Navy Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4067/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.4067/Mum/2014) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Ito Ward-19(3)(3), Mumbai Vs. M/S Milestone Army Navy Trust, 602, Hallmark Business Plaza, Sant Nyaneshwar Marg, Opp. Gurunanak Hospital, Bandra East Mumbai-51 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aactm 0102 F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Chandra Vijay ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, Dated 28-3-2014, For The Assessment Year 2009-10, Wherein The Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Revenue :- (1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Income Of The Assessee Is Taxable In The Hands Of Contributors & Not In The Hands Of The Aop. (2) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Activities Of The Assessee Are Not Commercial In Nature Even Though The Assessee Has Not Carried Out Any Activity In The Spirit Of Trust. (3) The Appellant Prays That The Order Of Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored.‖

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay

Section 10(35)Section 234BSection 61

Mahindra & Mahindra Employees Stock Option Trust, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 12(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.4 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2389/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri R.C.Sharma, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.2389/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mahindra & Mahindra Adcit, Range-12(2), Employees‟ Stock Option Mumbai-20 Trust, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai- 400001 स्थामी रेखा सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aahfm 9583 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यनधावरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri H.P.Mahajani याजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P.Singh सुनर्ाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma, Am The Present Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A) -28, Mumbai, Dated 26-3-2015 For A.Y.2011-12. 2. During The Course Of Hearing The Assessee Has Filed Concise Grounds Of Appeal. These Have Been Considered By Us For The Adjudication Of This Appeal & Are Reproduced Hereunder :-

For Appellant: Shri H.P.MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh

Section 143(3)Section 250