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

M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1194/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1194/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 601, Geeta Enclave, Vinobha Ward 2(2) Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabct 7285 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rohan Sogani (Ca) & Shri Rajeev Sogani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 23/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- I, Jaipur Dated 13/09/2018 For The A.Y. 2013-14 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. (A) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Enhancing The Income By Disallowing Interest Expenditure Of Rs. 53,78,282. The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please Be Granted By Allowing The Said Expenditure Of Rs. 53,78,282. (B) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Exercising The Powers Of Enhancement Under Section 251(1)(A).

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

Nirmal Commercial Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1233/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1233/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shree Nirmal Commercial बिधम/ Income Tax Officer Ward Ltd. 3(3)(3) Vs. 241/242, Nirmal Bldg, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai- Backbay Reclamation, 400020. Nariman Point, Mumba- 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs7533F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal Ms. Neha Paranjpe Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Joshi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.11.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -8, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013- 14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Assessing Officer Has Erred In Considering The Following Expenses As Capital Expenditure Instead Of Revenue Expenditure Out Of The Total Expenses Of Repairs & Maintenance Of Rs. 70,04,835 Debited To Profit & Loss Account & Cit(A) In Confirming The Same. A.Y.2013-14 Name Of Party Rupees M/S. Bagwe Engineering Ltd. 12,17,472 M/S. Kamal Marble 23,62,501 M/S. Vinod Engineering 17,77,716 Total 53,57,689 2.2 The Cit(A) & The Assessing Officer Is Of The View That The Above Expenditures Have Not Been Incurred In Relation To Annual Maintenance Cost For Normal Wear & Tear & The Said Expenditures Are Expected To Give Long Lasting Benefit To The Appellant & Hence, Erred In Considering The Same As Capital Expenditure.

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi (DR)