Section 30 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.28

Section 30 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 28 (Rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 28 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 30 is ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. v. CIT (343 ITR 89), cited in 144 of the 167 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 30

ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. v. CIT
343 ITR 89 · 2012 · Supreme Court
144
citing judgments

For calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC, if total interest is netted off after adjusting interest paid and received, the 90% reduction specified in Explanation (baa) is not applicable.

General Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT
240 ITR 139 · 1999 · Supreme Court
61
citing judgments

Rule 5(a) of the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act applies to add back an amount only if it is an expenditure or allowance contemplated in sections 30 to 43A and is specifically disallowed. Without such a specific prohibition, amounts like provisions for preference share redemption or amortization cannot be added back to an insurance company's profits.

CIT v. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills (P) Ltd.
315 ITR 114 · 2009 · Supreme Court
48
citing judgments

Expenditure qualifies as 'current repairs' if it maintains existing machinery without replacement, creates no new asset, restores functional efficiency without increasing capacity, and is not an independent unit. Conversely, the cost of replacing machinery, especially independent units, constitutes capital expenditure.

Lord Thankerton in Hughes v. Bank of New Zealand
6 ITR 636 · 1938 · Reported
44
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is deductible, even if it is unremunerative or does not yield an immediate profit. The absence of a corresponding receipt does not negate the deductibility of such an expense.

CIT v. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd.
306 ITR 182 · 2008 · High Court
40
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred on improvements like flooring, partition, wiring, and false ceiling in existing premises is treated as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure, even if it provides some lasting benefit. Such expenses are deductible if made for efficiently carrying on the business.

Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT
194 ITR 294 · 1992 · Supreme Court
35
citing judgments

If the actual cost of an asset was wrongly assessed in earlier years, it can be recomputed and corrected in subsequent assessment years. Interest incurred before production on borrowed money for plant construction can be capitalized and added to the cost of fixed assets.

CIT v. Herbalife International India (P.) Ltd.
384 ITR 276 · 2016 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) for payments to a US resident is not permissible if it imposes harsher conditions than those applicable to payments made to an Indian resident, due to the non-discrimination clause in the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

CIT v. Oxford University Press
108 ITR 166 · 1977 · High Court
24
citing judgments

Expenditure on repairs is revenue in nature if it preserves or maintains an existing asset, rather than creating a new asset or advantage. The duration of the benefit from repairs does not determine if the expenditure is capital.

CIT v. Ramaraji Surgical Cotton Mills
294 ITR 328 · 2007 · Supreme Court
24
citing judgments

The High Court's direction to the CIT(Appeals) to consider specific Supreme Court judgments implies that cases may be decided on merits by appellate authorities based on relevant precedents without necessarily remanding them to the Assessing Officer.

Alubound Dacs India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
163 Taxmann.com 536 · 2024 · ITAT
24
citing judgments

Expenditure on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities is an allowable deduction under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, provided the conditions stipulated in section 80G are met, irrespective of being part of CSR expenditure.

Judgments on Section 30

M/S Herbalife International India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITTPA 905/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 905/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Herbalife International India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Rmz Pinnacle, No. 15, Income-Tax, Commissariat Road, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 025. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaach8025R Appellant Respondent : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Assessee By Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 06-06-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.07.2022 Passed By The Assessment Unit For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another 1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Framed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) & Section 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act) Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department ('Learned Assessing Officer' Or 'Learned Ao') Dated July 27, 2022, To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law, Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 92BSection 92C