Section 28(i) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.26

Section 28(i) falls under section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which 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(i) is Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (244 ITR 734), cited in 168 of the 55 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 28(i)

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT
244 ITR 734 · 2000 · High Court
168
citing judgments

The Revenue is bound by the rule of consistency and cannot adopt a divergent position in a subsequent assessment year unless there is a change in facts or law.

CEPT v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd.
20 ITR 451 · 1951 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

Income derived from leasing a business asset is considered business income under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Ahmadabad in ACIT v. Goldmine Shares & Finance (P.) Ltd.
113 ITD 209 · 2008 · ITAT
37
citing judgments

Deductions under section 80IA are to be computed with reference to the profits of each eligible unit independently, without considering the profits or losses of other units. Each eligible unit is treated as a standalone entity for the purpose of calculating this deduction.

CIT v. Alchemic (P) Ltd.
130 ITR 168 · 1981 · High Court
37
citing judgments

Debt forgiveness constituting a monetary benefit does not attract Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. Such a benefit is not income arising from business or profession.

CIT v. Seshasayee Industries Ltd. (Mad)
242 ITR 691 · High Court
34
citing judgments

A wrong decision, even if followed in earlier years, cannot be perpetuated on the basis of the principle of consistency if it contravenes the correct law and facts.

CIT v. L.G. Electronic (India) Ltd.
282 ITR 545 · 2006 · High Court
23
citing judgments

The setting up of a business and the commencement of a business are distinct events and do not necessarily occur on the same date. Expenses incurred before the commencement of business but after the setting up of business may be considered for determining profits.

Hotels P. Ltd. v. DCIT
373 ITR 494 · 2015 · High Court
21
citing judgments

Rental income from letting out a commercial complex is assessed as income from house property, not business income, where the assessee is not engaged in any business activity.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupur v. Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd.
76 Taxmann.com 176 · 2016 · Supreme Court
19
citing judgments

Profits of other businesses cannot be notionally brought forward and set off against profits of an eligible business under Section 80-IA(5) as the Income-Tax Act does not provide for such a mandate.

Income-tax Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. 135 ITR 200 (Mad.) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd.
119 ITR 380 · 1979 · High Court
18
citing judgments

The Supreme Court has held that the Tax Recovery Officer has the power to issue a prohibitory order under Section 222 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even before the demand becomes final. This power is available when there is a certificate of arrears.

Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT
151 Taxmann 202 · 2006 · High Court
9
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 28(i)

M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Dharmapuri vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3243/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2913/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 5/95, Cmelbatchhapet, Income Tax, Salem. Sennimalai Gardens, Harur, Tamil Nadu 636 903. [Pan:Aabck1431D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3243/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 5/95, Cmelbatchhapet, Income Tax, Sennimalai Gardens, Harur, Circle I, Salem. Tamil Nadu 636 903. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Salem, Dated 01.03.2018 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Thirumagal Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Harur vs. ACIT Circle 1, Hosur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2913/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2913/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 5/95, Cmelbatchhapet, Income Tax, Salem. Sennimalai Gardens, Harur, Tamil Nadu 636 903. [Pan:Aabck1431D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3243/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 5/95, Cmelbatchhapet, Income Tax, Sennimalai Gardens, Harur, Circle I, Salem. Tamil Nadu 636 903. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Salem, Dated 01.03.2018 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Shri Vipul Amrutlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6272/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6272/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिाम/ Shri Vipul Amrutlal Shah, Acit-16(1) 101/102, A-Wing, R. No. 467, Bharat Ark, Azad Nagar, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Veera Desai Road, M.K Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aecps3110H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul K. Hakani Revenue By: Shri S.K. Poddar (Cit-Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6272/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2013-14 In Appeal No.Cit(A)-4/It-48/Acit- 16(1)/2016-17 Dated 28.07.2017, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From An Assessment Order Dated 14.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2013-14. I.T.A. No.6272/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Poddar (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 28