Section 3 of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 3 is Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (368 ITR 680), cited in 41 of the 288 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 3

Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT
368 ITR 680 · 2014 · High Court
41
citing judgments

A real estate development business is considered 'set up' when the assessee is in a position to undertake activities for the acquisition, development, and exploitation of real estate. Expenses incurred between the setting up and commencement of such a business are allowable, even if no revenue is generated or land is classified as a non-current investment.

CIT v. Autokast Ltd.
248 ITR 110 · 2001 · Supreme Court
41
citing judgments

Interest earned on surplus funds deposited in short-term deposits is chargeable under section 56 as income from other sources. This interest cannot be treated as business income unless it is inextricably linked with the business operations.

ADM Agro Industries Latur and Vizag (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT
174 Taxmann.com 725 · 2025 · High Court
11
citing judgments

Reassessment notices issued under section 148 are valid if issued in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal, including providing information and granting time for response, even if the original notice was under the old regime.

Behramji Sorabji Lalkaka v. CIT
16 ITR 301 · 1948 · High Court
8
citing judgments
70 (SC).in ITO v. Girish Kumar Gupta
175 Taxmann.com 1037 · 2025 · Reported
7
citing judgments
PCIT v. Sahara India Financial Corporation Limited
119 Taxmann.com 285 · 2020 · Supreme Court
4
citing judgments
14. Again, in Saroj Mehndi v. ITO
174 Taxmann.com 278 · High Court
4
citing judgments
DCIT v. PPFAS Asst. Management (P) Ltd.
105 Taxmann.com 103 · 2019 · ITAT
3
citing judgments
Small Industries Development Bank of India v. CBDT
440 ITR 80 · Reported
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 3

Allahabad Bank Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal

CIVIL APPEAL No. 161/1952Supreme Court08 Oct 1953

Bench: The Judgment Under Appeal Income-Tax, Was Delivered. West Bengal Dissent Has Been Expressed In The Judgment Under Appeal From The Recent Decision Of The Bombay High Court In New Shorrock Spinning & 1L1 Anuf Acturing Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay('). The Facts Of That Case Are Entirely Different From The Facts Of The Case Before Us & That Decision Has No Manner Of Application To The Present Case. It Is, There- Fore, Unnecessary For Us To Discuss Or Express Any Opinion As To Whether The Observations To Be Found In The Judgment In That Case Are Or Are Not Well-Founded. For Reasons Stated Above, We Accept This Appeal & Hold That The Answer To The Question Referred By The Appellate Tribunal To The High Court Should Be In The Negative. The Respondent Company Must Pay The Costs Of The Appellant In This Court As Well As In The High Court. Appeal Allowed. Agent For The Appellant: G. H. Rajadhyaksha. Agent For The Respondent: S. C. Banerjee. Allahabad Bank Ltd. V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West Bengal. [Patanjali Sastri C.J;, S.R. Das, Vivian Bose, Ghulam Hasan & Bhagwati Jj.] Income-Tax Act (Xi Of 1922). S. 10 (2) (Xv)-Contribntion Lo Trust For Payment Of Pension To Employees-Tvhether Bitsiness Expend- Iture-Payment Of Pension & Amount Thereof Left To Discretion Of Employer-No Obligation On Tr·Nstees To Pny Pension-Validity Of Trust. (1) [1950] 18 I.T.R. 712; A.I.R. 1950 Born. 39L V. Messrs. J Eewanlal Ltd. Dasj. 1963 Oct. 8

For Appellant: G. H. RajadhyakshaFor Respondent: S. C. Banerjee
Section 66(1)