Section 28(v) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 28(v) is Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT (95 ITD 269), cited in 213 of the 39 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 28(v)

Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT
95 ITD 269 · 2005 · High Court
213
citing judgments

Revenue must demonstrate the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign enterprise in India, including establishing that transactions underlying a Dependent Agent PE were not at arm's length. Income from the sale of goods is not taxable in India if title and risk in the goods pass outside India.

Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT
107 ITR 195 · 1977 · Supreme Court
165
citing judgments

A new industrial undertaking is not considered a reconstruction of an existing business for tax deduction purposes if it is a separate, independent production unit manufacturing commercially tangible products that can operate without losing its identity in the old business. The transfer and substantial use of assets and manpower from an old business to a new one may indicate reconstruction.

7.14 In CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd.
196 ITR 149 · 1992 · Supreme Court
120
citing judgments

Incentive provisions in the Income-tax Act, particularly those granting deductions for new industrial undertakings, must be construed liberally to achieve their legislative purpose. This principle guides the interpretation of conditions such as what constitutes a 'new undertaking' versus a 'splitting up or reconstruction' of an existing business for claiming deductions.

CIT v. Nayan Builders and Developers
368 ITR 722 · 2014 · High Court
80
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the quantum appeal is pending before the High Court or where a quantum addition is confirmed and a question of law is admitted by the High Court.

CIT v. R.M. Chidambaram
106 ITR 292 · 1977 · Supreme Court
36
citing judgments

Salary paid to a partner is merely a mode of sharing profits and retains the character of the firm's income. The payment is an adjustment of the amount the partner is entitled to receive based on their contribution of human capital, skill, and toil.

CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari
74 ITR 57 · 1969 · Supreme Court
28
citing judgments

A partner's income from a firm, including salary, bonus, commission, or remuneration, is considered business income in their hands. Expenses necessary for earning this business income are deductible.

CIT vs. South Arcot Soc. (176 ITR 117, 119) (SC) Ct v. UO Co-op Fed. (
177 ITR 418 · 1989 · Supreme Court
26
citing judgments

Provisions intended to promote economic growth, such as those encouraging cooperative societies, are to be interpreted liberally. Restrictions on such provisions should be construed to advance their objective, not frustrate it.

CIT v. Anamallais Timber Trust Ltd.
18 ITR 333 · 1950 · High Court
21
citing judgments
PCIT v. Harsh International Pvt. Ltd.
431 ITR 118 · 2021 · High Court
18
citing judgments
Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT
159 ITR 253 · 1986 · High Court
16
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 28(v)

ATUL KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 43(1), DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3516/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3516/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2018-19) Atul Kumar Gupta, 3812/5, Kanhiaya Nagar, Tri Nagar, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Delhi 110035 Pan: Aggpg-9567-J बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-43(1), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Anil Sharma, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 24/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.03.2025, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Shri Anil Sharma, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Is A Chartered Accountant By Profession & Is A Partner In M/S. A P R A & Associates Llp, Chartered Accountants. During The Period Relevant To Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Received Remuneration Of Rs.24,00,000/- From The Aforesaid Partnership Firm. The Assessee Claimed Expenditure Of Rs.6,76,456/- On Account Of Travelling Expenses, Telephone

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sharma, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 28Section 32

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

ITA 256/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

Showing 120 of 39 · Page 1 of 2