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

Kapil Gupta, Sirmaur vs. ACIT Central Circle Shimla, Shimla

The appeals stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1011/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1010/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1011/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1013/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Shri Kapil Gupta Acit (Central) C/O M/S Himgiri Beverages बनाम/ Vs. Shimla (Hp) -171001 Kala Amb – 173030 (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpg-0399-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) A/W Sh. Lovesh Bansal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 To 2023-24 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) a/w Sh. LoveshFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 28Section 69Section 69A

Kapil Gupta, Sirmaur vs. ACIT Central Shimla, Shimla

The appeals stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1010/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1010/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1011/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1013/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Shri Kapil Gupta Acit (Central) C/O M/S Himgiri Beverages बनाम/ Vs. Shimla (Hp) -171001 Kala Amb – 173030 (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpg-0399-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) A/W Sh. Lovesh Bansal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 To 2023-24 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) a/w Sh. LoveshFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 28Section 69Section 69A

Mange Ram, Gurugram vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Mange Ram, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income H. No. 261, Main Pataudi Tax, Faridabad, Road, Near Hanuman Temple, Village Garoli Khurd, P.O.- Basai, Gurugram, Haryana Pan: Amwpr7462B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nian, Adv., Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca Department By Ms. Amish S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 15.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, The “Pcit”], Faridabad’S Order Dated 04.12.2023 Having Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1058449758(1), Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Herd Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)