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 WD 19(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Milestone Army Navy Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4067/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.4067/Mum/2014) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Ito Ward-19(3)(3), Mumbai Vs. M/S Milestone Army Navy Trust, 602, Hallmark Business Plaza, Sant Nyaneshwar Marg, Opp. Gurunanak Hospital, Bandra East Mumbai-51 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aactm 0102 F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Chandra Vijay ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, Dated 28-3-2014, For The Assessment Year 2009-10, Wherein The Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Revenue :- (1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Income Of The Assessee Is Taxable In The Hands Of Contributors & Not In The Hands Of The Aop. (2) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Activities Of The Assessee Are Not Commercial In Nature Even Though The Assessee Has Not Carried Out Any Activity In The Spirit Of Trust. (3) The Appellant Prays That The Order Of Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored.‖

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 10(35)Section 234BSection 61