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

Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 899/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1145/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40