Section 61 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.97

Section 61 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 97 (Chargeability of income in transfer of assets) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 97 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 61 is (CIT v. Cochin Co. Pvt. Ltd. (104 ITR 655), cited in 32 of the 82 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 61

(CIT v. Cochin Co. Pvt. Ltd.
104 ITR 655 · 1976 · High Court
32
citing judgments

A protective assessment is permissible when the assessing officer has doubt regarding who is in receipt of income, but a recovery based on a protective assessment is not allowed. If an assessment is intended to be protective, it must be clearly stated as such.

Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
137 Taxmann.com 315 · 2022 · High Court
29
citing judgments

When reopening an assessment, the assessing officer must provide the assessee with a copy of the superior officer's approval, including their comments, name, designation, and date, not merely state the reasons in a letter. This ensures transparency in the reassessment process.

Dayabai v. CIT
154 ITR 248 · 1985 · High Court
20
citing judgments

A protective assessment is permissible only at the initial assessment stage, as higher appellate or revisional authorities can definitively determine the liable assessee.

(CIT v. Khalid Mehdi
165 ITR 685 · 1987 · High Court
18
citing judgments

A protective assessment must be expressly stated as such by the Income Tax Department. It is made out of abundant caution when there is doubt as to who has received the income.

Ex Japan) Analyst Fund (2014) 61 SOT 277 and Capital International Emerging Markets Funs v. DIT
145 ITD 491 · 2013 · ITAT
11
citing judgments

The decision in ADIT vs Legg Mason Sia (Ex Japan) Analyst Fund and Capital International Emerging Markets Funs vs DIT supports the assessee where non-STT paid funds are concerned.

Behramji Sorabji Lalkaka v. CIT
16 ITR 301 · 1948 · High Court
8
citing judgments
Ltd. vs. ADIT (2009) (132 TTJ 218); Fidelity Investment Trust Fidelity Overseas Fund v. ADIT
36 SOT 22 · ITAT
4
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 61

ITO 22 (1)(6), Mumbai vs. Arcil Aarf I 1 Trust, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 7353/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 7353/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito – 22(1)(6) Arcil Aarf-I-1 Trust R. No. 104, 1St Floor 10Th Floor, The Ruby 29 बिाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Sepapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Vs. Mumbai-400 012 (W), Mumbai-400 028 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacta-0755-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar– Ld. Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain – Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 15/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 17/09/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) On 19/02/2016. The Ground Read As Under: - 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Changing The Status Of Assessee As "Trust" & Not Aop & Allowing Expenses Of Rs.6,18,21,763 Which Was Made By The Assessee For Protection Preservation & Insurance Expenses & Management Fees From Such Investment Activity Upon Redemption Of The Principal Amount Of Security Receipts(Sr)."

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 61

Income Tax Officer-23(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Indian Corporate Loan Securities Trust 2008 Series 14, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal for A

ITA 4789/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust 2008 Matru Mandir Series 14 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block 3Rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Iii Matru Mandir 2009 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat17440L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Matru Mandir 2008 Series 36 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16925L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals In Ita No.4789/Mum/2017, 4791/Mum/2017 & 4794/Mum/2017 For A.Y.2010-11 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 32/It-604/23(1)(2)/2015-16, Cit(A)-32/It-48/19(3)(2)/2012-13 & Cit(A)-32/It-483/Ito-19(3)(4)/12-13 Respectively Dated 24/04/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 26/02/2016, 31/10/2012 Respectively By The Ld. Income Tax Officer – 23(1)(2) & 19(3)(2) Respectively, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 148Section 161Section 161(1)Section 61