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)

Hari Shankar Modi, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 649/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.649/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2009-2010) Hari Shankar Modi Vs. Ito Ward 7(1) Aayakar Bhawan, 24 Madan Mohan Tolla P-7, Chowringhee Square, Street, Kolkata-700005 Kolkata "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aelpm0041G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bishnu Kant Agarwal Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kr. Kureel, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 04/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Kolkata, In Appeal No.406/Cit(A)-16/Kol/2014-15/W-7(1), Dated 09.02.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 29.09.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 24.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.11,39,230/-. The Assessee`S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment By Making Addition Of Medical Insurance Receipt Of Rs.2,41,767/-. The Assessee Had Received A Sum Of Rs.2,41,767/-As Reimbursement Of Expenses Incurred In Relation To A Surgery Of Gall Bladder By New India Insurance Company Under Medical Insurance Policy. Assessing Officer Observed That The Amount Of Insurance

For Appellant: Shri Bishnu Kant AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kr. Kureel, JCIT
Section 10DSection 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 80D