Which cases are most cited on Section 198?

CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (39 ITR 706) — 103 citing judgments; COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. VASISTH CHAY VYAAR LIMITED (90 Taxmann.com 365) — 15 citing judgments; Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Ltd. v. CIT (258 ITR 496) — 9 citing judgments; Hyderabad Pharma Infrastructure & Technologies Ltd. v. ADIT(Intl. Taxn.) (45 Taxmann.com 339) — 8 citing judgments; 131 ITD 205 (Chennai Trib.) 5. Pardeep Kumar Dhir v. ACIT (98 ITD 147) — 8 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 198?

BharatTax indexes 91 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 198 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 198 of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 198 of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (39 ITR 706) is the decision most relied on for Section 198, cited in 103 judgments. The law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Profits charged to tax must be in accordance with law and not amount to taxing notional income.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.396

Section 198 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 396 (Tax deducted is income received) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 396 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 198 is CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (39 ITR 706), cited in 103 of the 91 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 198

CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.

39 ITR 706 · 1960 · High Court

103

citing judgments

The law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Profits charged to tax must be in accordance with law and not amount to taxing notional income.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. VASISTH CHAY VYAAR LIMITED

90 Taxmann.com 365 · 2018 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Interest income on Non-Performing Assets (NPA) need not be recognized on an accrual basis and the provisions of Section 145 of the Income Tax Act do not play a role in such income recognition. Furthermore, if interest does not result in any income, there can be no levy of tax.

Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Ltd. v. CIT

258 ITR 496 · 2002 · High Court

citing judgments

Hyderabad Pharma Infrastructure & Technologies Ltd. v. ADIT(Intl. Taxn.)

45 Taxmann.com 339 · 2014 · Reported

citing judgments

131 ITD 205 (Chennai Trib.) 5. Pardeep Kumar Dhir v. ACIT

98 ITD 147 · 2006 · ITAT

citing judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax-II v. SAR Infracon P Ltd.

318 ITR 317 · 1996 · Reported

citing judgments

TC Leasing & Finance Ltd. 39 TW 211 (Raj. HC) Brahmaputra Capital & Financial Services Ltd. v. ITO

119 ITD 266 · 2009 · ITAT

citing judgments

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. West Bengal Housing Infrastructure

413 ITR 82 · High Court

citing judgments

Delhi Development Authority v. ITO

53 ITD 19 · 1995 · ITAT

citing judgments

413 ITR 82 (Calcutta) Pr CIT v. West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corpn. Ltd SLP Dismissed

263 Taxmann 237 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 198

Hanoze Harish Thakkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 9314/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Hon’Ble & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Hon’Ble

Section 147Section 151Section 198Section 69

Netscout Systems Industrial Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT- Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3582/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. M. Dosspermanent Account Number : Aabcf9765F

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)

Anita Grover, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4305/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanmrs. Anita Grover, Vs. Ito, Ward 34 (5), Up-13, 1St Floor, Maurya Enclave, Delhi. Pitampura, Delhi - 110 034. (Pan: Aappg0883L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rupender Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2026 Date Of Order : 31.08.2026 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl./Jcit-1, Hyderabad [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 24.02.2026 For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The First Appellate Authority Erred In Holding The Appeal Before It To Be Belated & In Not Condoning Delay If Any, In Filing Of The Same. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The First Appellate Authority Erred In Confirming Findings In Intimation Order U/S.143(1), Wherein A Tax Demand Of Rs.29,517/- Had Been Determined As Against A Refund Due Of Rs. 54,600/-

For Appellant: Shri Rupender Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 194Section 205

Knight Frank Property Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1247/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Girish Agrawalknight Frank Property Services Vs. Dy. Commisioner Of Private Limited Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(2), 1St Floor, Paville House, Near Mumbai. Twin Towers, Prabhadevi, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai Mumbai 400025 400020 Pan/Gir No. Aafck3311G (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 250