Section 28(iiid) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.26

Section 28(iiid) 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(iiid) is Additionally, in CIT v. A. Raman & Co. (67 ITR 11), cited in 321 of the 65 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 28(iiid)

Additionally, in CIT v. A. Raman & Co.
67 ITR 11 · 1968 · Supreme Court
321
citing judgments

The mere lawful reorganization of a business transaction does not automatically imply an intent to evade tax, and genuine business adjustments should not be considered suppressive actions without clear evidence of such intent.

CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works
290 ITR 667 · 2007 · Supreme Court
163
citing judgments

Excise duty collected by the assessee as an agent on behalf of the government is not includible in the total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80HHC.

CIT v. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd.
346 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court
129
citing judgments

Expenses incurred for software license purchase, development of miscellaneous software, and maintenance of websites are considered revenue in nature. Such expenses are deductible in the year they are incurred.

CIT v. Amway India Enterprises
346 ITR 341 · 2012 · High Court
71
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by an assessee on software license purchases, development of miscellaneous software, website maintenance, distributor incentives, market development, and brand promotion is revenue in nature.

Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
8 SCC 667 · 1999 · Supreme Court
70
citing judgments

The case distinguishes between legitimate tax planning and transactions that are colourable devices or shams, affirming that while legal arrangements to reduce tax are permissible, transactions lacking legitimacy and designed purely to evade tax are not.

(CIT v. Baby Marine Exports
290 ITR 323 · 2007 · Supreme Court
68
citing judgments

For supporting manufacturers claiming deduction under Section 80HHC(3A), the reduction of export incentives specified in Explanation (baa) of Section 80HHC, which refers to amounts under Section 28(iiia) to (iiie), does not apply.

CIT v. Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd.
245 ITR 769 · 2000 · High Court
59
citing judgments

Proceeds from the sale of scrap packing material are to be included in the total turnover for computing deduction under section 80HHC. However, the turnover should be restricted to receipts that have an element of profit.

CIT v. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries
364 ITR 144 · 2014 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that ICAI Guidance Notes and accounting methods prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) can be relied upon for computing "turnover," especially for tax audit purposes under Section 44AB and for transactions involving shares and derivatives.

CIT v. Grace Collis
248 ITR 323 · 2001 · Supreme Court
58
citing judgments

The term 'transfer' under Section 2(47) includes the relinquishment of a right to property that creates an interest in the property. However, the extinguishment of rights in shares, when occurring without a formal conveyance, does not attract capital gains.

DCIT v. Sun Pharmaceutical Ind Ltd.
329 ITR 479 · 2010 · High Court
49
citing judgments

Amortization claimed on capitalized leasehold land, which is reported as an asset in the balance sheet, is an allowable deduction for income-tax purposes.

Judgments on Section 28(iiid)

Nulux Engineers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2073/MUM/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2073/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2001-02) बिाम/ Nulux Engineers Dcit Cir 20(2) 5-Beach Queen, Mumbai 33- J.P Road, Versova, V. Mumbai-400061 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaafn1423C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Manish Shah Revenue By : Shri. D.G Pansari , Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2073/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 02.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-39, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2001-02, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Order Dated 30.08.2013 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2001-02. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In The Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Tribunal”) Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Manish ShahFor Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari , DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 28Section 80H