Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 2(24) is CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (341 ITR 385), cited in 270 of the 355 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 2(24)

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
341 ITR 385 · 2012 · High Court
270
citing judgments

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd.
261 ITR 275 · 2003 · Supreme Court
204
citing judgments

A liability recognized in accordance with the Accounting Standards prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) is an allowable expense for income tax purposes.

CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.
383 ITR 217 · 2016 · Supreme Court
203
citing judgments

Subsidies and excise duty refunds that are accounted for in the Profit and Loss account are revenue in nature, form part of business income, and are eligible for deductions under Section 80IB/80IC. Such receipts cannot be reduced from the block of assets for depreciation calculation.

PCIT v. Ankit
416 ITR 591 · 2019 · High Court
125
citing judgments

Capital receipts, including interest subsidy received under schemes like TUF, are excluded when computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. This principle also extends to the reduction of provisions written back from book profits for MAT purposes.

CIT v. My Home Power Ltd.
365 ITR 82 · 2014 · High Court
123
citing judgments

Receipts from the sale of carbon credits are capital receipts, not business income, as they arise from environmental concerns and not from business operations. Such receipts are not taxable under Sections 2(24), 28, 45, or 56 of the Act, especially prior to the introduction of Section 115BBG.

CIT v. Rasoi Ltd.
335 ITR 438 · 2011 · High Court
107
citing judgments

Sales tax subsidies and Industrial Promotion Assistance received under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme are capital receipts and therefore not liable to tax. The ruling clarifies the inapplicability of the Sahney Steel judgment to such subsidies.

Pr. CIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd.
109 Taxmann.com 93 · 2019 · High Court
77
citing judgments

Capital receipts, such as interest and power subsidy, are not includible in book profit under Section 115JB as they do not fall within the definition of income under Section 2(24).

Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT
325 ITR 422 · 2010 · Supreme Court
72
citing judgments

Forfeited advance money received for the transfer of a capital asset is not taxable as revenue receipt. Such forfeiture pertains to a capital receipt directly related to the potential sale of a capital asset.

Rain Commodities Ltd. v. DCIT
41 DTR 449 · 2010 · ITAT
71
citing judgments

The ITAT Special Bench in Rain Commodities Ltd. held that certain capital receipts, such as forfeited share warrants, if credited to the profit and loss account, are liable for book profits tax under Section 115JB (Minimum Alternate Tax).

19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC)
73 ITR 634 · 1969 · Supreme Court
61
citing judgments

When claiming an expenditure under section 37(1), the onus is on the assessee to prove the necessary facts, not on the revenue. Mere production of vouchers is insufficient if the genuineness of payment is doubted.

Judgments on Section 2(24)

M Model Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 158/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 158/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit 15(2)(2), M/S M. Model Global Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor, Services Pvt. Ltd. (Known As Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Aquity Solutions India Pvt. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Ltd.), 1St Floor, Unit No. 103, बिधम/ Reliable Plaza, Plot No. K- Vs. 10, Kalwa Industrial Area, Village-Elthen, Taluka &Dist-Thane, Airoli, Navi Mumbai-400 708 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaacc9165F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Ms. Karishma Phatarpekar, Ar By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Uodal Raj Singh, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 22.06.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1) Of I.T. Act

For Appellant: Ms. Karishma PhatarpekarFor Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)Section 92

M/S Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai vs. ITO(E)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 861/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.861/Mum/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ M/S. Multi Commodity Ito (E)-2(1) 5Th Floor, Piramal Exchange Investor Vs. Protection Fund Chambers Lalbaug Parel, Exchange Square, Cts Mumbai-400012. No.225 Suren Road Chakala Andheri (E), Mukhed-400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadtm1169M (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave/Tanzil R. Padvekar Revenue By: Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 04.11.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ("Ld. Cit(A)") Erred In Passing The Order U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Giving An Opportunity Of Being Heard To Your Appellant Thereby Violating The Principles Of Natural Justice. Looking To The Facts & Circumstances Of Appellant'S Case & In Law, It Is Submitted That Vide Letter Dated 09/10/2019 Your Appellant Had Requested The Ld. Cit(A) For A Short Adjournment As The Concerned Authorized Person Was Out Of India. Without Prejudice To The Above:

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave/Tanzil RFor Respondent: Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak (DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 2(15)Section 250