Section 198 of the Income Tax Act

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
15
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
9
citing judgments
Hyderabad Pharma Infrastructure & Technologies Ltd. v. ADIT(Intl. Taxn.)
45 Taxmann.com 339 · 2014 · Reported
8
citing judgments
131 ITD 205 (Chennai Trib.) 5. Pardeep Kumar Dhir v. ACIT
98 ITD 147 · 2006 · ITAT
8
citing judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax-II v. SAR Infracon P Ltd.
318 ITR 317 · 1996 · Reported
6
citing judgments
TC Leasing & Finance Ltd. 39 TW 211 (Raj. HC) Brahmaputra Capital & Financial Services Ltd. v. ITO
119 ITD 266 · 2009 · ITAT
4
citing judgments
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. West Bengal Housing Infrastructure
413 ITR 82 · High Court
4
citing judgments
Delhi Development Authority v. ITO
53 ITD 19 · 1995 · ITAT
4
citing judgments
413 ITR 82 (Calcutta) Pr CIT v. West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corpn. Ltd SLP Dismissed
263 Taxmann 237 · Supreme Court
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 198

ACIT, Circle - 4, Kolkata vs. M/S. Apex Enterprises (I) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 286/KOL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Rabin Choudhury, JCITFor Respondent: Shri D. S. Damle, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 73

ITO, WD-31(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bata India Ltd. Employees Statutory Provident Fund, Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 103/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kr.Das, JCIT.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.Jhajharia, AR
Section 10Section 10(25)(ii)Section 139(1)Section 17Section 44A

Sh. Surendra Kumar Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1792/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Surendra Kumar Wadhwa, C/O- Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -20(2), Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, 14, School New Delhi Lane, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aabpw0250F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 18.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Order Dated 27/01/2014 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-V, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2000-10, Raising Following Grounds: 1. That, The Assessment Order & The Appellate Order Are Based On Conjucture & Surmises & Against The Facts Of The Case & The Law Laid Down In This Respect. 2. That, The Assessing Officer & The Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Errored In Taxing The Commission Payable Of Rs. 4,08,080 In This Year, While This Amount Belongs To The Subsequent Year When The Bills Were Raised & The Amount Was Received. The Appellant Has Never Offered To Tax In This Year Rs. 4,08,080. The Submission Of The Assessing Officer In This Respect Is His Words & Not The Words Of The Appellant. The Affidavit Can Be Submitted For The Confirmation Of This Submission. 3. That, The Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Errored In Considering The Loan Processing Fees As A Capital Expenditure Instead Of Revenue Expenditure. The Loan Processing Fees Payable To Bank Is A Bank Charges For Rendering Services For Granting The Loan For Car For Business Purpose. This Amount Cannot Be Considered As Capital Expenditure. This Is Revenue Expenditure. 4. That, The Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Errored In Saying That The Amount Of Rs. 3,90,579 May Be Reduced From The Income For The A.Y. 2010- 11 If Such Amount Has Indeed Been Taxed Twice.

Section 143(2)

M/S. Botil Oil Tools India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5375/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, DR
Section 309Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

M/S. Botil Oil Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2382/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, DR
Section 309Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

M/S. Botil Oil Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 973/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, DR
Section 309Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Knowledge Infrastructure Systems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1287/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra :Asstt. Yrs: 2005-06 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Knowledge Infrastructure Ward 5(3), New Delhi. Systems Pvt. Ltd., (1) A-2/22, Safdarjung Enclave, N. Delhi. (2) G-02, Salcon Aurum Complex, 4, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi. Pan: Aacck 4380 L ( Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Khanna Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri R.S. Singhvi CA
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 198

Amichand Investment Pvt. Ltd vs. Dy. CIT (Asstt.) S.R

ITR/35/1998HC Gujarat22 Apr 2008
Section 115JSection 256(1)

Commissioner of Income Taxd vs. Kanchanjanga Invstment Pvt.Ltd

ITR/176/1995HC Gujarat07 Nov 2001
Section 21Section 215

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nilgiri Investments Pvt. Ltd

ITR/315/1993HC Gujarat06 Nov 2001
Section 194ASection 215Section 215(5)

Sayaji Iron & Engg Co vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITR/158/1986HC Gujarat24 Jul 2001