Section 4 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.4

Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 4 (Charge of income-tax) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 4 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 4 is Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT (108 ITR 345), cited in 209 of the 1,145 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 4

Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT
108 ITR 345 · 1977 · Supreme Court
209
citing judgments

Taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly, assuming that the law-making authority does not commit a mistake or make an omission. There is no room for purposive interpretation under direct tax laws.

Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd: 82 ITR 452 (SC) and Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT
242 ITR 450 · 2002 · Supreme Court
154
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by an assessee operating a composite business that generates both taxable and non-taxable income is fully allowable without apportionment. This position led to the subsequent insertion of Section 14A, which disallowed expenditure related to earning exempt income.

CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Inc.
49 Taxmann.com 257 · 2014 · High Court
145
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot exceed the actual tax-exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant year. If no tax-exempt income is earned, no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted.

CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd.
57 Taxmann.com 28 · 2015 · High Court
138
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A applies only when exempt income is actually received or receivable during the relevant previous year. The provision does not trigger merely upon incurring expenditure if no exempt income materialized in that year.

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO
315 ITR 255 · 2009 · High Court
112
citing judgments

Interest earned from the temporary parking of borrowed funds specifically intended for project development, prior to the commencement of business, constitutes a capital receipt inextricably linked to the project and is not taxable as 'income from other sources'.

CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd.
82 ITR 452 · 1971 · Supreme Court
109
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by an assessee carrying on a composite business giving rise to both taxable and non-taxable income is allowable in its entirety without apportionment. This principle led to the subsequent introduction of Section 14A of the Income-tax Act.

Keshav Mills Ltd. v. CIT
23 ITR 230 · 1953 · Supreme Court
86
citing judgments

Income taxability depends on the real nature of the receipt and actual or constructive receipt of income, not merely on book entries. An amount is only "deemed to be received" if explicitly provided by the Income Tax Act, not by an assessee's unilateral intention.

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. DCIT
383 ITR 59 · 2016 · High Court
64
citing judgments

Tax must be deducted at source under Section 194A only on interest that ultimately partakes the character of income for the recipient. If interest does not qualify as income or falls outside the scope of Section 2(28A), there is no obligation to deduct TDS.

Pr. CIT v. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd.
425 ITR 700 · 2020 · High Court
53
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be made if no exempt income is earned in the relevant assessment year. Consequently, such disallowance should not be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB.

Ltd. v. ACIT
21 Taxmann.com 138 · 2012 · Reported
49
citing judgments

The primary issue concerns the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly concerning whether an assessee is a 'developer' or 'contractor' for infrastructure projects. The case appears to discuss the impact of subsequent amendments, such as the Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2007, on the classification of contracts and the availability of such deductions.

Judgments on Section 4

Prakash Dayaram Chandnani, Rajkot vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 927/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 927/Rjt/2026 [ "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 ] Prakash Dayaram Chandnani, Ito Ward 2(1)(1), Rajkot, 63, Gumansinhji Shopping Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Vs. Opp. Vegetable Market Dhebar Ring Road, Rajkot, Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360001, Gujarat-360001. "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Acipc2285K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2026 :: Order :: Per,Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated 17.04.2026, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Act, Dated 23.03.2024. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. That The Learned Cit(A) Has Grievously Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Learned A.O. In Assuming Jurisdiction & Initiating Income Prakash Dayaram Chandnani

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A