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

Puli Ashok Reddy, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Nellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 526/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narsimha Chary & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanishri Puli Ashok Reddy, Nellore. Pan Acspp8800H …..Appellant. Vs. Pr. Commission Of Income-Tax, Tirupati. …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri A.V. Raghuram, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2022. O R D E R Per Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revision-Order Dated 12.03.2021 Passed By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tirupati [“Ld. Pcit” In Short] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“‘The Act” In Short] For Assessment-Year 2016-17. 2 2. The Registry Has Informed That That The Present Appeal Was Required To Be Filed By 11.05.2021 But The Same Was Actually Filed On 16.12.2021, After A Delay Of 219 Days. The Ld. Ar Prayed That The Delay Has Occurred Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. The Ld. Ar Further Placed Reliance On The Order Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 Of 2020 Read With Misc. Applications, By Which Suo Motu Extension Of The Limitation-Period For Filing Of Appeals W.E.F. 15.03.2020 Under All Laws Has Been Granted & Hence There Is No Delay In Fact. We Confronted The Ld. Dr Who Agreed To The Submission Of Ld. Ar. In View Of This, The Appeal Is Proceeded With For Hearing, There Being No Delay.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 7Section 72

M/S Tata Elxsi Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 907/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Assistant Itpl Road, Commissioner Of Hoody, Income Tax, Whitefield Road, Ao As Special Range 7, Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.03.2019 By Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1 The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7(1)(1) (`A0'), Bangalore Has Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals)-7 (`Cit(A)') Has Erred In Partly Confirming The Said Assessment Order. The Said Order To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Grounds Relating To Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80Jjaa Of The Act 2.1. The Learned Ao Has Erred In Disallowing Deduction Under Section 80Jjaa Amounting To Rs. 13,14,23,244/-

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 28Section 37Section 80J

DCIT, Corporate Circle - 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2205/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

For Appellant: Dr. I.P. Roopa JCITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, CA

DCIT, Corporate Circle - 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2204/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

For Appellant: Dr. I.P. Roopa JCITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, CA