Which cases are most cited on Section 234?

CIT v. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. (180 Taxmann 87) — 40 citing judgments; ITO v. Chem Mech (P) Ltd. (83 ITD 427) — 27 citing judgments; CIT v. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) (207 ITR 148) — 23 citing judgments; Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. v. ITO Surmmon V ITO (27 Taxmann 157) — 9 citing judgments; Dr. Vijay Pahwa v. DCIT (250 ITR 354) — 8 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 234?

BharatTax indexes 130 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 234 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 234 of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 234 of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. (180 Taxmann 87) is the decision most relied on for Section 234, cited in 40 judgments. Expenditure incurred for making advertisement films is revenue expenditure if it relates to an ongoing business. However, if the expenditure is for a brand to be used in a business yet to commence, it is capital expenditure.

The decision most relied on for Section 234 is CIT v. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. (180 Taxmann 87), cited in 40 of the 130 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 234

CIT v. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd.

180 Taxmann 87 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for making advertisement films is revenue expenditure if it relates to an ongoing business. However, if the expenditure is for a brand to be used in a business yet to commence, it is capital expenditure.

ITO v. Chem Mech (P) Ltd.

83 ITD 427 · 2002 · ITAT

citing judgments

When a property is vacant or the annual letting value (ALV) is not ascertainable, the ALV can be estimated at 8.5% of the construction cost or investment value. This estimation method is supported by case law, including ITO v. Chem Mech (P) Ltd.

CIT v. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF)

207 ITR 148 · 1994 · High Court

citing judgments

A person is considered to be 'holding' property for the purpose of capital gains tax if they possess it as an owner, lessee, mortgagee, or under an agreement for sale, not solely as the legal owner.

Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. v. ITO Surmmon V ITO

27 Taxmann 157 · 1986 · High Court

citing judgments

Dr. Vijay Pahwa v. DCIT

250 ITR 354 · 2001 · High Court

citing judgments

Spandana (Rural & Urban Development Organisation) v. ACIT

40 DTR 153 · 2010 · Reported

citing judgments

Khem Chand Mukim v. PDIT (Inv.)

123 Taxmann.com 117 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

Khem Chand Mukim v. PCIT (Inv)

423 ITR 129 · High Court

citing judgments

CIT v. Procter & Gamble Home Products Limited

377 ITR 66 · High Court

citing judgments

Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Bharatha Swamukhi Samsthe

28 DTR 113 · 2009 · Reported

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 234

Gartner Inida Research & Advisory Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7800/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92Section 92C(2)

Sheela Daniel, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2811/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2811/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Ms. Sheela Daniel बिधम/ Ito 21(2)(4) 21, Nupur, Near Jewel Bandra (E), Mumbai-51. Vs. Nursing Home, Gulmohar Cross Road No-5, Jvpd Scheme, Mumbai-400049. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aefpd6933C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.03.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -38, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2006- 07. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(v)

Rajesh Metal Industries P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 788/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodrajesh Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. Ito Ward-5(3)(1) 12/18, Vitthalbhai Patel Road, Mumbai Vs. C.P. Tank, Mumbai 400 004 Pan – Aaacr1847D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaitnya Anjaria, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Kishorebhai V. Vithlani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1216/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Shri Kishorchandra V. Vithlani Vs. Ito, Ward-6(3) 10, Dharamnagar Hsg. Society Baroda. Nr. Sbi Navbazar, At. Karjan Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Aatpv 8204 E

For Appellant: Shri Anil R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Singh, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 54Section 69A

Rishi Devkinanndan Mehra, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 24(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1853/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanhaFor Respondent: Shri J. Saravanan

Section 144Section 14ASection 234Section 24Section 271

M/S Nanobi Data and Analytics Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 996/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2018AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem .M, JCIT (DR)

Section 234

M/S. the Kangod Group Multi Purpose Co-Operative Society, Sirsi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in A

ITA 2794/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Karthikeyan, IRS (DR)

Section 234Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

M/S the Kangod Group Multi Purpose Co-Op Society, Sirsi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Sirsi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in A

ITA 2793/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Karthikeyan, IRS (DR)

Section 234Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jaimin Jewellery Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2007-

ITA 3203/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3195/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S Jaimin Jewellery Exports, Vs. The Acit-19(2), Mumbai 52, Marble Arch, G Dashukh Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400026 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfj2140C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3194/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Jaimin Jewellery Exports Vs. The Acit-5(2)(1), Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., 52, Marble Arch, G Dashukh Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400026 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj9820F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3203/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S Jaimin Jewellery Exports Tax, Circle 5(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 571, Aayakar Bhavan, C/O Mehta Family Trust, M.K. Road, 52, Marble Arch, Mumbai - 400020 G Dashukh Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400026 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj9820F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. Raheja( AR)For Respondent: Shri Com. V. Rajguru (Sr.DR)

Section 143Section 147

Jaimin Jewellery Exports, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2007-

ITA 3195/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. Raheja( AR)For Respondent: Shri Com. V. Rajguru (Sr.DR)

Section 143Section 147

Kailash A Kothari, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 13(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2334/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2334/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Kailash A. Kothari Ito, Ward 13(1)(3), बनाम/ 128/130, Sarang Street, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 003 Mumbai-400 020 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Pranali Dixit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari

For Appellant: Ms. Pranali DixitFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 143(3)Section 234

Dimpy Enterprses, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3208/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234

S.K. Silks, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 14(3), Mumbai

ITA 3616/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3615/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3616/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./351/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. S.K. Silks Addl Cit, -14 (3) 9, Chatrabhuj House, 285 Princess Street Earnest House, 5Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Nariman Point,Mumbai. Pan:Aaafs 1035 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-Dr Assessee By: Dr. P. Daniel

For Appellant: Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-DR

Section 254(1)Section 36Section 80H

S.K. Silks, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 14(3), Mumbai

ITA 351/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-DR

Section 254(1)Section 36Section 80H

Samar Technology, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2268/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2268/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ld ARFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta, Ld. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)

Kanji Deva Patel, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 23(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6071/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 148Section 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 348

Akay Industries P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 748/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.748/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Akay Industries P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer – बनाम/ 22A Film Centre, 5(1)(1), V. 2 Nd Floor, 68 Tardeo Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai – 400 034. Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaaca9228K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sachhidanand Dubey

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

Babita Malkani, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 25, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed whereas rest of the ground is dismissed

ITA 3347/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3347/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Babita Malkani Deputy Commissioner Of 102, Bharat Nagar Chs Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-25 बनाम/ Juhu Versova Link Road Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri (W) Mumbai 400 020. Mumbai 400053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpm-4051-F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Malathi Shridharan (CIT) DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153CSection 234Section 271(1)(c)

Rbs Equities (India) Ltd (Formerly Known As Abn Amro Asia Equities India Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 3077/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Shiddaramappa Kappattanvar –Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

Aruna D Sawant, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

ITA 7191/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negismt.Aruna D Sawant, 2, Bhaskar Bhau Lane, Mantri Building, Gamdevi, Grant Road, Mumbai 400007 Pan:Aaops6604 ...... Appellant Vs. The Ito 16(2)(4), Matru Mandir, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 271Section 50CSection 54Section 54F