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

Foster Wheeler (Gb) Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, International Taxation Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITTPA 47/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwali.T.(Tp)A. Nos.45, 47, 48 & 49/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 623/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

Foster Wheeler (Gb) Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, International Taxation Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITTPA 45/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwali.T.(Tp)A. Nos.45, 47, 48 & 49/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 623/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

The Municipal Cooperative Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4144/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 197ASection 3Section 4Section 40

L'Oreal India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 4577/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarl'Oreal India Private V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, A-Wing, 8Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai Maharashtra 400 013, बनाम Income Tax- 7(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacl0738K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth Respondent By : Ms. Neena Jeph (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Prabhash Shankar [Α.Μ.] This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Tpo' For Short) Pursuant To The Direction Of The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp' For Short), Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Relevant To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2020-21.The Assessee Has Challenged The Grounds Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment On Account Of Advertisement, Marketing & Promotion (Amp) Expenses. Following Are The Grounds Raised By The Assessee: Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

Subhendu Mohanty, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 17(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1238/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Subhendu Mohanty Deputy Commissioner H.P.C.L. Of Income Tax 17(1) 1St Floor, Room No. 121, Shri Balaji Alfa Bazar, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Thakorbhai Desai Bkc, Mumbai. Hall, Vs. High Street-1, Law Garden, Ahmedabad- 380006. Pan:Aegpm9693H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Krish DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh- Sr. A.R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 197Section 250Section 90

M/S.Texmo Precision Castings Uk Limited, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle 2(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITTPA 15/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं/.It(Tp)A No.: 15/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Texmo Precision Castings Acit Uk Limited, V. International Taxation-2(2) Post Bag No.5303, Chennai. Mettupalayam Road, G.N.Mills Post, Coimbatore-641 209. [Pan:Aafct-4768-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri T.Surya Narayana & Ms. Manasa Ananthan, Advocates ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shrig.Suresh, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri T.Surya Narayana &For Respondent: ShriG.Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 4Section 5Section 9(1)(vii)

Subash Chand, Kaithal vs. Income Tax Officer, Kaithal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 401/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 234ASection 4

Sajjan Kumar Bansal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-37(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1466/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1466/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sajjan Kumar Bansal……………....................………………....Appellant 125, B K Pual Avenue, West Bengal-700006. [Pan: Advpb8045Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-37(4), Kolkata.……………….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vinod Jain, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhishek Kumar, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 06, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.05.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Under Mistaken Belief That The Assessee Has Availed Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 & He Treated The Appeal Has Deemed To Be Withdrawn As Per Clause 2 Of Section 4 Of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. However, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Had Availed Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme In Respect Of Earlier Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2015 U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act. Thereafter, The Assessment Was Again Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act And

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 4

Shri Rishabh Devji Kesarimaljijain Sh Mp Dt S Sangh, Ratlam vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal Addljcit(A)11 Mumbai, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 118/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Indore06 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2019-20 Shri Rishabh Devji Cpc Bengaluru/ Kesarimalji Jain Sh Mp Dt Cit(A)/Addl. Jcit-(A)-11, S. Sangh, Mumbai बनाम/ Bajaj Khana, Vs. Ratlam

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 2(45)Section 4

Bisseswarlal Mannalal & Sons., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-33, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1136/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1136/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bisseswarlal Mannalal & Sons...................………………....Appellant 12, Pretoria Street, 5Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan: Aacfb7736L] Vs. Acit, Circle-33, Kolkata.……………….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samaddar, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 04, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.08.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Under Mistaken Belief That The Assessee Has Availed Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 & He Treated The Appeal Has Deemed To Be Withdrawn As Per Clause 2 Of Section 4 Of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. However, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Had Availed Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme In Respect Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 10.03.14. Thereafter, The Assessment Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act 23.03.16. The Ld. Counsel Has Submitted That The Assessee

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 4

Akash, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer (It), Ward-1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1535/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(vii)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Yellow Sapphire International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3467/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 212Section 56Section 56(1)

Ganesh Chhaganlal Jain, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC Bengaluru, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Preetam Kumar H. Turerao, SR. DR
Section 143(1)Section 207Section 207(2)(a)Section 234CSection 4

DCIT, Cir 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai

ITA 2273/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer - 7(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3098/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi a/wFor Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 4Section 44A

The Delhi Building & Others Construction Workers Welfare Board, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2916/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrathe Delhi Building & Vs. Acit(E), Circle- 2(1) Others Construction Civic Centre, Workers Welfare Board New Delhi – 110002 5, Sham Nath Marg, O/O Labour Commissioner, Govt. Of Nct, Delhi – 110054 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajt1846R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 2(24)Section 4Section 60

Allied Computers Intl. Asia Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1198/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 1198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) M/S. Allied Computers Vs. Acit, Cc-2(2) Intl. Asia Limited 8Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan Office No. 8, 5 Th Floor M. K. Road Block A, Aidun Building. Mumbai-400 020. 1St Dhobi Talao Lane Mumbai-400 002. Pan : Aadca4412E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 115JSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

I.T.O Ward 41(4)(1), Bkc Mumbai vs. Fairdeal Realitie, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3297/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year :2015-16 I.T.O Ward 41(4)(1),Bkc Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051. ---- Appellant Vs. Fairdeal Realite, Flexcel Park, B-Wing, Ground Floor, S.V.Road, Next To Karat Multiplex Mumbai 400 102 Pan: Aaaff-7074-K --- Respondent C.O No.29/Mum/2024 [Arising Out Of Ita No.3297/Mum/2023,A.Y.2015-16] Fairdeal Realite, Flexcel Park, B-Wing, Ground Floor, S.V.Road, Next To Karat Multiplex Mumbai 400 102 Pan: Aaaff-7074-K ...... Cross Objector Vs. I.T.O Ward 41(4)(1),Bkc Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051 ...... Appellant In Appeal Revenue By : Shri Surendra Meena Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/06/2024

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - 4(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4693/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2021-22
For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Shri. Boregowda Rajanna, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 304/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 115BSection 144Section 234Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 4Section 69A