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

Shri K. Shanmugam, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukkottai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 462/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.462/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 K. Shanmugam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 76-77, Sathya Sai Illam, Ward 1, Charles Nagar, Pudukkottai 622 001. Pudukkottai. [Pan:Aamps8456Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Ashok Sundaresan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 10.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed With A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit Mentioning The Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal. By Referring To The Above Affidavit, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That There Is Reasonable Cause

For Appellant: Shri S. Ashok Sundaresan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Guwahati vs. M/S. Shiv Steel Industries, Guwahati

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 176/GTY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 176/Gty/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M/S. Shiv Steel Industries Circle-4 Vs Block Dhanuka Complex S.J. Road Athgaon, Kamrup Guwahati - 781001 [Pan : Abefs6132J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, Fca Revenue By : Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, Acit, Sr. D/R & Shri Arun Bhowmick, Jcit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Guwahati -2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 28/02/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In Manufacturing Of Tmt Bars. Income Of Rs.20,58,660/- Declared In The E-Return Filed On 29/09/2013. Case Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass Followed By Validly Serving Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. While Computing The Total Income, The Assessee Claimed Deduction U/S 80Ie Of The Act In Respect Of Vat Remission At Rs. 1,99,13,704/-. The Assessee Filed Form 10Ccb Eligibility Certificate, Registration Certificate From Inspector Of Factories, Assam & Other Details.

For Appellant: Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, ACIT, Sr. D/R & Shri Arun
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 28Section 80I