Which cases are most cited on Section 2(22)?

Wimco Seedlings v. DCIT (107 ITD 267) — 40 citing judgments; Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Additional CIT (56 Taxmann.com 415) — 33 citing judgments; Ujjain General Trading Society (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (67 ITR 315) — 8 citing judgments; CIT v. Shreeram Tech Ltd. (33 Taxmann.com 194) — 7 citing judgments; Executors & Trustees of Sir Cawasji Jehangir v. CIT (35 ITR 537) — 3 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 2(22)?

BharatTax indexes 40 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 2(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 2(22) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 2(22) of the Income Tax Act?

Wimco Seedlings v. DCIT (107 ITD 267) is the decision most relied on for Section 2(22), cited in 40 judgments. There can be no presumption that an assessee must have incurred expenditure to earn tax-free income. Disallowance under section 14A requires actual expenditure, not notional or estimated amounts.

The decision most relied on for Section 2(22) is Wimco Seedlings v. DCIT (107 ITD 267), cited in 40 of the 40 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 2(22)

Wimco Seedlings v. DCIT

107 ITD 267 · 2007 · ITAT

citing judgments

There can be no presumption that an assessee must have incurred expenditure to earn tax-free income. Disallowance under section 14A requires actual expenditure, not notional or estimated amounts.

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Additional CIT

56 Taxmann.com 415 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Profits and gains from scraps resulting from a manufacturing process are eligible for deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act.

Ujjain General Trading Society (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

67 ITR 315 · 1968 · ITAT

citing judgments

CIT v. Shreeram Tech Ltd.

33 Taxmann.com 194 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

Executors & Trustees of Sir Cawasji Jehangir v. CIT

35 ITR 537 · 1959 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 2(22)

Neural Developers P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), New Delhi

ITA 3978/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Senior DR

Neural Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), New Delhi

ITA 5807/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Senior DR

Neural Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5641/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Senior DR

Smt Rinku Chakraborthy vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/40052/2018HC Karnataka24 Sept 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari W.P.No.40052/2018 (T-It) Between

Section 2Section 2(22)Section 260A

Karsandas L. Danani, Mumbai vs. DCIT 23(2), Mumbai

ITA 4788/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4788/Mum/2012 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri H. S. RahejaFor Respondent: ShriM. C. Omi

Vidyasagar M.P Sah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 527/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 527/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vidyasagar M. P. Sah Dy. Cit-23(3), बनाम/ 22-A, Bandstand Society, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, 197-C, Kane Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafps 5412 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Aarjoo Garodia सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 12.01.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. Short Term Capital Gain Of Rs.3,51,66,426/- Treated As Business Income 1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Treating The Short Term Capital Gain Of Rs.3,51,66,426/- As 'Business Income1 Without Appreciating The Crucial Facts That The Assessee Is A Professional / Consultant For Exploration & Drilling Activities For Oil Wells / Rigs Etc. Which Is The Principal Source Of Income Since 32 Years, Wherein He Has To Devote Maximum Time & The Activity Has Been Accepted By The Department In All The Prior Years As Well As In The Relevant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Aarjoo Garodia