Which cases are most cited on Section 4(1)?

Ramnath & Co. v. CIT (116 Taxmann.com 885) — 30 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 4(1)?

BharatTax indexes 43 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 4(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 4(1) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 4(1) of the Income Tax Act?

Ramnath & Co. v. CIT (116 Taxmann.com 885) is the decision most relied on for Section 4(1), cited in 30 judgments. Beneficial provisions in tax law should be interpreted strictly, with the burden of proof on the assessee. Ambiguous beneficial provisions are interpreted in favour of the Revenue.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.4

Section 4(1) falls under section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which 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(1) is Ramnath & Co. v. CIT (116 Taxmann.com 885), cited in 30 of the 43 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 4(1)

Ramnath & Co. v. CIT

116 Taxmann.com 885 · 2020 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Beneficial provisions in tax law should be interpreted strictly, with the burden of proof on the assessee. Ambiguous beneficial provisions are interpreted in favour of the Revenue.

Judgments on Section 4(1)

Bangalore Development Authority vs. Doddalakkappa

WA/3855/2010HC Karnataka17 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 17(1)Section 4Section 4(1)Section 6(1)

Shri Ramavtar Sharma, Pilani vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jhunjhunu

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 95/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 95/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Cuke Shri Ramavtar Sharma, I.T.O., Vs. Ward No. 3, Vidhya Vihar, Hari Ward-2, Nagar Colony, Pilani, Jhunjhunu. Jhunjhunu. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Btcps 2204 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Shivangi Samdhani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv, Jaipur Dated 29/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Ms. Shivangi Samdhani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 4(1)Section 4(2)Section 5(1)

M/S Kinu Baba Jewellery P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 676/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 676/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke M/S Kinu Baba Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O., Vs. 41, K Tower, Mahaveer Marg, C- Ward-1(4), Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabck 8555 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Shivangi Samdhani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jaipur Dated 18/02/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Ms. Shivangi Samdhani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 4(1)Section 4(2)Section 5(1)

Iffc Ltd vs. Jt Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal stands disposed of

ITA/1527/2010HC Delhi23 Dec 2020

Bench: Being Available For Set-Off Against Profits Of The Same Undertaking In A Succeeding Or Later Year?”

Section 151Section 3Section 4(1)Section 4(3)Section 5(1)Section 5(2)Section 80

Ajit Vithal Dake, Ichalkaranji vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Ichalkaranji

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 85/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.82 To 85/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 4(1)Section 5(1)

Ajit Vithal Dake, Ichalkaranji vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Ichalkaranji

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 84/PUN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.82 To 85/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 4(1)Section 5(1)

Ajit Vithal Dake, Ichalkaranji vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Ichalkaranji

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 83/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.82 To 85/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 4(1)Section 5(1)

Ajit Vithal Dake, Ichalkaranji vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Ichalkaranji

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 82/PUN/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.82 To 85/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 4(1)Section 5(1)

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Vadodara vs. M/S. Vadodara Enviro Channel Project Ltd., Vadodara

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 766/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.766/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri M.S.A. Khan, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Shah, AR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4(1)Section 5(1)(a)Section 5(1)(b)Section 9(1)(i)

Amita Dua vs. Gift Tax Officer

The appeals are allowed

GTA/1/2007HC Delhi22 Feb 2018

Section 4(1)Section 6

Princial Commissioner of Wealth Tax - 7 vs. M/S Oriental Building & Furnishing Co. Ltd

WTA/1/2017HC Delhi18 Jul 2017

Section 4(1)Section 4(2)Section 66

ITO, Mysore vs. M/S Lab Land Bio Tech Pvt. Ltd., Mysore

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 879/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT

Section 10(1)Section 115Section 2Section 35

A.C. of Gift Tax vs. Sarabhai Pvt Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

TAXAP/331/2000HC Gujarat24 Nov 2014

Section 15Section 15(6)Section 16(1)Section 21Section 4(1)Section 48

Sri. M.V.Subba Rao S/O Rattayya and Anr vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Anr

WA/50311/2013HC Karnataka30 Oct 2013

Bench: RAM MOHAN REDDY,K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

Section 18(1)Section 4Section 4(1)

Sri M V Subba Rao vs. Land Acquisition Officer/Asst. Commissioner

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed

WP/753/2008HC Karnataka28 Feb 2013

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice N.Kumar Writ Petition No. 753 Of 2008 (La-Res) Between: 1. Sri M. V. Subba Rao S/O Rattayya Age 76 Years 2. Sri M.M.G. Prasad S/O M.V. Subba Rao Age 50 Years Both Residing At Singapore Village Taluk Sindhnoor District Raichur ...Petitioners (By Sri Y. Varadaraj & A.M. Nagaral, Advocates) And: 1. Land Acquisition Officer/ Lingasagur Dist. Raichur ®

Section 18(1)Section 28Section 4(1)

M/S Fabio Exports vs. The State of Karnataka

In the result, I pass the following:

WP/61346/2012HC Karnataka29 Nov 2012

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N. Ananda Writ Petition No.61346/2012 & Writ Petition No.61401/2012 Between 1. M/S. Fabio Exports 1St Floor, Swastik Complex, Opp. Apmc, Hospet. By Its Partners Petitioners No.2 & 3 2. K.V. Nagaraj S/O. K.Gopasetty, Partner Of Petitioner No.1 Firm, Age: 37 Years, Occ: Business, R/O 1St Floor, Swastik Complex, Opp. Apmc, Hospet. 3. Kvn Govindaraju S/O K.Gopalsetty Age: 37 Years, Occ: Business, R/O 1St Floor, Swastik Complex, Opp. Apmc, Hospet. ... Petitioners (By Sriyuths.K.L.Patil & S.S.Beturmath, Advs.) & 1. The State Of Karnataka Rep. By Its Secretary, Commerce & Industries Department (Ssi, Mines & Textile) Vikas Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.

Section 21Section 379