Section 2(45) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 2(45) is Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nizam's Suppl. Religious Endowment Trust (127 ITR 378), cited in 87 of the 66 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 2(45)

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nizam's Suppl. Religious Endowment Trust
127 ITR 378 · 1981 · High Court
87
citing judgments

Income of a charitable trust, other than from a business undertaking covered by Section 11(4), is determined based on its books of account. Payments of income tax and wealth tax by the trust are considered an application of income for charitable purposes under Section 11.

Anglo French Textile Company Ltd. v. CIT
23 ITR 101 · 1953 · Supreme Court
21
citing judgments

Profits attributable to a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India can be conservatively estimated, such as by applying a percentage of global profits to Indian sales, when the PE's activities in India are minimal.

PCIT v. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co.
283 ITR 329 · 2006 · High Court
19
citing judgments

The genuineness of a transaction does not constitute a reasonable cause for the non-levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

NSS Karayogam v. CIT
271 Taxmann 193 · 2020 · High Court
5
citing judgments
ACIT(Exemption) v. Marugappa Chettiar Trust
303 ITR 360 · High Court
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 2(45)

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Gangagen Biotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1087/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Jinitha Chatterjee, Advocate
Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 2(45)Section 70(1)

DCIT vs. M/S Vmoksha Technologies Pvt. Ltd

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1053/BANG/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T(Tp).A No.1053/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2004-05) Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -12 (3), Bangalore ..Appellant V. M/S. Vmoksha Technologies P. Ltd, No.2799 & 2800, Srinidhi Sector –I, 27Th Main, Hsr Layout, Bangalore 560 102 ..Respondent Pan : Aabck2021R Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas Bharath. K. N, Ca Revenue By : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. Cit Heard On : 23.09.2015 Pronounced On : 30.09.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas Bharath. K. N, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT
Section 10ASection 2(45)Section 70(1)

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Safran Aerospace

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/248/2015HC Karnataka28 Sept 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 10ASection 2(45)Section 260Section 70(1)

Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Carremen Silvercast Clothing(I)P Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Nainegli Mallinath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 2(45)Section 5Section 72

Jatin Mahendrabhai Chokshi vs. Dy C I T (Assessment)

Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

TAXAP/445/2000HC Gujarat10 Jun 2014
Section 138Section 158B

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. M/S A.R. Enterprises

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2688/2006Supreme Court14 Jan 2013

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 132Section 132ASection 139Section 158

C I T vs. M/S Amritsar Processors P Ltd

The appeal stands allowed

ITA/535/2007HC Punjab & Haryana06 Apr 2011
Section 113Section 132(1)Section 139Section 158BSection 32Section 32(2)

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Moser Baer India Limited

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/1458/2006HC Delhi17 Sept 2007
Section 10BSection 260Section 271(1)(c)

Reading and Bates Driling Co vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal is dismissed accordingly

ITA/118/2004HC Uttarakhand14 Jul 2005

Bench: Us Is As Follows: “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Tribunal Erred In Law In Holding That The Off-Period’ Salary Paid To The Petitioner Was Liable To Tax In India?”

Section 2(45)Section 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissoner Income Tax vs. Reading and Bates Exploration

ITA/24/2002HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:-

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reading and Bates Exploation Co

ITA/544/2001HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:-

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner of Ioincome Tax vs. Reading and Bates Exploration

ITA/31/2002HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:-

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Com. Income Tax vs. Readingh and Bates

ITA/55/2002HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:-

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reading and Bates Exploration

ITA/30/2002HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:-

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reading and Bates Exploration

ITA/21/2002HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:-

Section 2(45)Section 234Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner Income Tax vs. Halliburton of Shore Service

ITA/10/2001HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:- Questions: (1). Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Itat Was Legally Justified In Holding That The Salary Paid To The Assessee For The Off Period Outside

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner Income Tax vs. Halliburtonn of Shore Service

ITA/1/2001HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:- Questions: (1). Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Itat Was Legally Justified In Holding That The Salary Paid To The Assessee For The Off Period Outside

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Com. Income Tax vs. Readingh and Bates Co

ITA/37/2002HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:-

Section 2(45)Section 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner of Oncome Tax vs. Reading and Bates Exploration

ITA/23/2002HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:-

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Commissioner Income Tax vs. M/S Reading and Bates Exploration Co

ITA/24/2001HC Uttarakhand20 Jul 2004

Bench: Us Are As Follows:- Questions: (1). Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Itat Was Legally Justified In Holding That The Salary Paid To The Assessee For The Off Period Outside

Section 2(45)Section 234BSection 260ASection 4Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)