What is the leading case on Section 23A of the Income Tax Act?

DCIT v. Kalindi Rail Nirman Engg. Ltd. (52 SOT 137) is the decision most relied on for Section 23A, cited in 3 judgments.

Which cases are most cited on Section 23A?

DCIT v. Kalindi Rail Nirman Engg. Ltd. (52 SOT 137) — 3 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 23A?

BharatTax indexes 45 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 23A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 23A of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 23A is DCIT v. Kalindi Rail Nirman Engg. Ltd. (52 SOT 137), cited in 3 of the 45 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 23A

DCIT v. Kalindi Rail Nirman Engg. Ltd.

52 SOT 137 · 2012 · ITAT

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 23A

Collector Mining vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)

Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above

TAXC/111/2025HC Chhattisgarh20 Aug 2025

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit

Section 133ASection 206Section 206CSection 260A

Mohammed Khalid Habib Parihar, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-31(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3345/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 50C

Dhiraj S. Makhijani L/H of Late Shyamlal A Makhijani, Godhra vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITSSA 236/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

Lords Fincap Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 15(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6980/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Gulati, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT- DR

Section 131

Commissioner, of Wealth Tax and Anr vs. The Lake Palace Hotels and Motels Ltd

SAW/43/2012HC Rajasthan03 Jan 2024

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 16(1)Section 25

Karanbhai Bharatbhai Gangdev, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 139/RJT/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pravenn S. Verma, Sr.DR

Section 50C

Lovy Ranka, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Circle 5(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 2107/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Us, But Then, As Is The Settled Legal Position, When A Reference Is Made To The Dvo, The Assessing Officer Has A Duty To “So Far As The Valuation Of The Asset In Question Is Concerned, Proceed To Complete The Assessment In Conformity With The Estimate Of The Valuation Officer”. The Question Then Arises Whether We Can Deal With The Question Of Correctness Of The Dvo’S Report- Particularly When The Assessing Officer Apparently Has No Say In This Regard.

Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50Section 50C(2)

Keyaa Exim Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 697/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Acherya, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Sh Sharvan Kumar Sharma vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/49/2018HC Rajasthan03 Jul 2018

Section 50CSection 52Section 53A

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Pravin Investment Ltd

ITR/124/1995HC Gujarat03 Aug 2006

Section 104Section 23

Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd vs. Income Tax Officers and Ors

CIVIL APPEAL No. 474/1984Supreme Court17 Feb 1998

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 23Section 23(2)Section 31Section 31(4)Section 34Section 34(3)Section 42

Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat

Accordingly fails and is dismissed

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2230/1977Supreme Court25 Feb 1993

Bench: The High Court Which E Held That No Action Could Be Taken Against The Assessee Under Section 23A. For The Assessment Year 1963-64 In Proceedings Under The Super Profits Tax Act, The Assessee Claimed That The Said Sum Of Rs. 4,50,000 Was A Reserve & Should Be Included In Its Capital. The Income Tax Officer Did F Not Agree. Ultimately The Matter Reached The Tribunal Which Agreed With The Assessee. At The Instance Of Revenue The Question As To Whether The Snm Of Rs. 4,50,000 Set Apart For Contingent Liability (Taxation) Was To Be Included In The Computation Of Capital Of The Assessee-Company Under Rule 1 Of The Second Schedule Of The Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 Was Referred G To The High Court. The High Court Having Answered The Question Against The Assessee, Th. Assessee Bas Preferred The Present Appeal Contending That Inasmuch -"-, As No Order Levying Additional Tax Under Sec. 23A Was Made The Amount Could Not Be Treated As A Provision. H 109

Section 23ASection 256