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

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1381/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Before Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1380 & 1381/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2017-18 Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.113, Janpriya Crest, Tax, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai- 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca3012H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Vinitha, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Arv Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company Directed Against The Orders Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act-1961 Dated 30.03.2025 & 31.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Two Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Ms.Vinitha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 13Section 143(3)Section 31Section 7

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1380/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Before Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1380 & 1381/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2017-18 Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.113, Janpriya Crest, Tax, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai- 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca3012H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Vinitha, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Arv Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company Directed Against The Orders Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act-1961 Dated 30.03.2025 & 31.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Two Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Ms.Vinitha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 13Section 143(3)Section 31Section 7