Section 31 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.28

Section 31 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 31 is Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction (126 Taxmann.com 132), cited in 192 of the 329 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 31

Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction
126 Taxmann.com 132 · 2021 · Supreme Court
192
citing judgments

Once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31(1) of the IBC, claims not included in the plan are extinguished and cannot be pursued. This applies to statutory dues owed to the government and other authorities.

CIT v. Saravana Spinning Mills Ltd.
293 ITR 201 · 2007 · Supreme Court
109
citing judgments

Expenditure for replacement of machinery parts qualifies as 'current repairs' under Section 31(i) of the Income-tax Act if it does not result in a new asset or substantially enhance the existing asset's life. For Section 31(i), the critical factor is whether the expense constitutes current repairs, making the general revenue vs. capital distinction less relevant for that specific section.

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.

Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Edelweis Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.
9 SCC 657 · 2021 · Reported
33
citing judgments

All claims, including statutory dues, that predate the approval of a resolution plan under the IBC stand extinguished by operation of law. No proceedings can be initiated or continued for such claims if they are not part of the approved plan.

New Delhi Municipal Council v. Minosha India Ltd.
138 Taxmann.com 73 · 2022 · Supreme Court
28
citing judgments

The moratorium period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, will be excluded when calculating the limitation period for proceedings involving a corporate debtor. The Assessing Officer can seek re-institution of an appeal if the resolution process concludes.

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.

Murli Industries Limited v. ACIT
441 ITR 8 · 2022 · High Court
22
citing judgments

Income tax proceedings initiated against a corporate debtor under section 148 for assessment years prior to the approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) are invalid, as the IBC aims to provide certainty by extinguishing all claims not part of the resolution plan.

Sling Media (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
194 ITD 1 · 2022 · ITAT
21
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) cannot be allowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, following Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) introduced by Finance Act No. 2 of 2014.

Palogix Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
135 Taxmann.com 73 · 2022 · ITAT
15
citing judgments

Appeals filed by a corporate debtor before the Tribunal are dismissed as infructuous when proceedings cannot continue against the corporate debtor after an NCLT order, due to the moratorium period under the IBC Code.

Kohinoor Steel (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer
159 Taxmann.com 571 · 2024 · Reported
14
citing judgments

Proceedings against a corporate debtor cannot continue after an order by the NCLT initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Judgments on Section 31

Videocon Oil Ventures Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Range 3(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5880/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5880/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) M/S. Videocon Oil Ventures बिधम/ Ito, Range-3(3)(4) Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. 171-C, Mittal Court, Road, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcv1810B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter “Ao”) Dated 17.09.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That Despite The Appeal Being Fixed Before This Tribunal For Hearing Several Times, The Assessee Is Not Represented By Their Authorized Representative Even Though Notices Has Been Sent To Them Informing About The Hearing. So We Are Inclined To Dispose Of The Appeal Filed In The Year 2018. 3. The Ld. Dr Brought To Our Notice About A Correspondence From The Assessee From Perusal Of Which It Transpires That Against The Assessee Company M/S Vovl Ltd (Formerly Known As Videocon Oil Venture Ltd) (“Corporate Debtor”) Cirp Proceedings [I.E. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process] As Per The Insolvency & Bankruptcy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (DR)
Section 10Section 14Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 178(6)Section 238Section 31

M/S Sankamtal Hotel Private Ltd., Belagavi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 2 (1), Belagavi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 191/PAN/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Sankamtal Hotel Acit, Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd. Belagavi S. Parthasarathi, Advocate, 3/1, Pranava Vs. Complex, 5Th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore- 560 003. Pan: Aadcs 5106 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Pratibha R., Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), -Belagavi In Ita No.51/Bgm/2016-17 Dated 25.02.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-2(1), Belagavi U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 14.03.2016 For A.Y. 2008-09. 2. There Is A Delay Of Five Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Affidavit Are Placed On Record. From The Affidavit, We Note That The Assessee Was Out Of Station When The Appeal Memo Was Sent To Him By The Counsel For Its Signature & Therefore A Short Delay Of 5 Days Occurred. Considering The Petition & In The Interest Of Justice & Fair Play, We Find It Proper To Admit The Appeal & Proceed To Adjudicate Thereon.

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 31