Section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 24(b) is CIT v. Mithilesh Kumari (92 ITR 9), cited in 54 of the 136 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 24(b)

CIT v. Mithilesh Kumari
92 ITR 9 · 1973 · High Court
54
citing judgments

Interest on borrowed capital used to acquire an asset, paid year after year until the date of sale, must be capitalized and included in the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains.

CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd.
57 ITR 306 · 1965 · Supreme Court
46
citing judgments

The nature of the activity giving rise to income is fundamental in determining the deductibility of expenses. Interest on loans for acquiring properties held as current assets is a deductible business expenditure if incurred for business purposes.

CIT v. Mythreyi Pai
152 ITR 247 · 1985 · High Court
44
citing judgments

Interest paid on a loan to acquire shares can be considered part of the cost of acquisition under Section 48 for computing capital gains, provided it has not been claimed as a deduction against other income. This prevents a double deduction of the same expenditure.

CIT v. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd.
311 ITR 253 · 2009 · High Court
29
citing judgments

Expenses incurred prior to business commencement but after business setup are deductible as revenue expenses, as the setting up and commencement dates of a business are not necessarily the same.

UOI v. Wood Papers Ltd.
4 SCC 256 · 1990 · Reported
29
citing judgments

In the interpretation of taxing statutes, exemption provisions are to be construed strictly, but once eligibility criteria are met, the exemption notification should be liberally construed to give it full play.

CIT v. Jaypee DSC Ventures Ltd.
335 ITR 132 · 2011 · High Court
28
citing judgments

Interest income generated from fixed deposits, if purchased due to business exigencies or for the purpose of carrying on business activities, is to be treated as business income and not income from other sources.

CIT v. Surinder Pal Anand, Surinder Pal Anand
242 CTR 61 · 2011 · High Court
20
citing judgments
CIT v. Taj International Jewellers
20 Taxmann.com 1 · 2012 · High Court
17
citing judgments
CIT v. K. Raja Gopala Rao
252 ITR 459 · 2001 · High Court
15
citing judgments
CIT v. Runwal Developers (P) Ltd.
15 Taxmann.com 196 · 2011 · High Court
14
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 24(b)

ROHIT BOHARA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 27(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 9333/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Rohit Bohra, Dcit-Circle27(3), B-3501, Bhagwati Eleganza, Vs Room No. 423, Vrccl, Plot No. 12, Sector 11, Ghansoli, Sector 30, Navi Mumbai, Navi Mumbai – 400709. Vashi – 400703. [Pan No. Ahqpb6511] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Aditya Ramachandran, Ca Revenue By Shri Ujjwal Kumar – Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per: Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (In Short, The Ld. Cit(A)) Dated 09/10/2025 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Appeal Of The Appellant Before The Cit (A) May Please Be Restored Back & The Non-Compliance Of The Appellant In Respect Of The Notices Issued By The Cit (A) May Please Be Excused As It Was For The Genuine Reasons. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer In Adding Time Deposits Amounting To Rs 10,00,000 Under Section 69 Of The Act On The Ground That The Appellant Was Unable To Prove Its Corresponding Source. Rohit Bohra

Section 254(1)Section 69Section 80C

Showing 120 of 136 · Page 1 of 7