Section 28 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.26

Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 26 (Income under head “Profits and gains of business or profession") of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 26 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 28 is CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. (349 ITR 98), cited in 818 of the 1,686 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 28

CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd.
349 ITR 98 · 2012 · High Court
818
citing judgments

When computing deduction under Section 10A, if communication or telecommunication expenses are excluded from export turnover, they must also be excluded from total turnover to maintain consistency and apply the ordinary meaning of 'turnover' in context.

CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd.
213 CTR 268 · 2007 · Supreme Court
422
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to provident fund and ESI are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) if deposited by the assessee before the due date for filing the income tax return.

Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT
225 ITR 798 · 1997 · Supreme Court
228
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for increasing a company's share capital or expanding its capital base, such as expenses related to the issue of shares, constitutes capital expenditure. Such expenses are not deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even if they incidentally benefit the business.

CIT v. Govindbhai Mamaiya
91 Taxmann.com 20 · 2018 · Supreme Court
205
citing judgments

Interest on enhanced compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the compensation, not merely interest income, and is exigible to tax on a receipt basis.

Badridas Daga v. CIT
34 ITR 10 · 1958 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

A loss incurred by a businessman, such as money lost or advances written off, if it arises in the ordinary course of business, is a deductible trading loss. Such a loss is allowable as it is inherent or incidental to the business operations.

Mahender Pal Narang v. CBDT
161 Taxmann.com 301 · 2024 · High Court
178
citing judgments

Interest received as enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for compulsory acquisition of land is taxable as "income from other sources" under Sections 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and is not exempt under Section 10(37).

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT
348 ITR 344 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.

CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi
296 ITR 292 · 2008 · High Court
145
citing judgments

An assessment order cannot be revised under Section 263 for being erroneous due to a perceived lack of enquiry if the Assessing Officer has already conducted an enquiry, applied their mind, and accepted the assessee's explanation.

Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. ITO TDS
388 ITR 343 · 2016 · High Court
128
citing judgments

Interest paid on compensation or enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of land forms part of the compensation itself and is not taxable as interest income under section 56(2)(viii) or section 145A.

Topman Exports v. CIT
342 ITR 49 · 2012 · Supreme Court
121
citing judgments

Export incentives, such as DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) and advance license benefits, constitute income taxable on an accrual basis under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act. Profit arising on the transfer of DEPB is not eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC.

Judgments on Section 28

Naresh Kumar, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. PCIT, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 209/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Sept 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumarnaresh Kumar, Vs. Pcit Village Sikanderpur Jaipur (Badha), Vpo Sikanderpur, Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No:Aabtb 7344 K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar (Thru V.C.) Respondent By : Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit Date Of Hearing 08.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28.09.2026 O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta, Am:- The Present Appeal Was Originally Heard By The Division Bench Consisting Of Hon’Ble, Sh. Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai & Hon’Ble, Sh. Narinder Kumar. On Account Of A Difference Of Opinion Between The Hon’Ble Members On P A G E | 2 Naresh Kumar Certain Issues Arising In The Appeal, The Following Point(S) Of Difference Were Framed & Referred To The Hon’Bleof The Tribunal Under Section 255(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). “Whether Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case When The Ld. Ao Has Verified The Issue Of Chargeability Of Interest In Hands Of The Assessee & Taken A Plausible View. Whether That View Taken By The Ld. Ao Which Is One Of The Plausible View Can Be Subjected To Revision As Per Provision Of Section 263 Of The Act Or Not”

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar (thru V.C.)For Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 145B(1)Section 255(4)Section 263Section 28Section 57