Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.101

Section 66(1) falls under section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 101 (Total income) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 101 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

184 judgments on BharatTax turn on Section 66(1).

Judgments on Section 66(1)

M/S Rajdeep Buildcon Pvt Ltd vs. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Zone)-1

The appeal is allowed

STA/12/2022HC Karnataka07 Jul 2026

Section 39(1)Section 66(1)Section 69(1)

Rajesh Gandhi, New Delhi vs. Sanghpriya Singh, DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 4701/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22 Ramesh Gandhi, Vs Dcit, 67-68, Sector-25, New Delhi. Pocket-2, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Aetpg9908E Assessment Year: 2021-22 Rajesh Gandhi, Dcit, 67-68, Sector-25, New Delhi. Pocket-2, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Azfpg7938P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Bindal, Ca Shri Anmol Jha, Advocate & Ms Rinky Sharma, Itp Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 Order Per Annapurna Gupta, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

Ramesh Gandhi, New Delhi vs. Sanghpriya Singh, DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 4696/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

M/S Silicon Estates vs. The Additional Commissioner of

In the result, the impugned orders of the

STA/4/2020HC Karnataka29 Mar 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,J.M.KHAZI

Section 39(1)Section 66(1)

Director Income Tax International Taxation vs. M/S Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd

ITA/30/2011HC Uttarakhand14 Mar 2019

Section 260ASection 263Section 44B

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S All India Tea and Trading Co. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed with costs

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2136/1979Supreme Court01 Mar 1996

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 2Section 2(1)Section 3Section 4Section 7

Shriyans Prasad Jain (Dead) by Lrs vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors

Accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2702/1979Supreme Court14 Sept 1993

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 147Section 148Section 245Section 66(1)Section 66(2)Section 7

Nagarmal Baijnath vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

CIVIL APPEAL No. 156/1979Supreme Court26 Mar 1993

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 21Section 44Section 66(1)

Chhathu Ram and Ors. Etc. Etc vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar, Patna and Ors

Accordingly fail and are dismissed

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1453/1980Supreme Court03 Mar 1993

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 155(3)Section 256(1)Section 34Section 34(18)Section 35(6)Section 66(1)

Sk. Ar. K. Ar. Somasundram Chettiar and Co. Madurai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. Madras

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1109/1976Supreme Court15 Jan 1992

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee, Conceding That The Transactions In Question Are Speculative Transactions Within The Meaning Of The Explanation 2 To Section 24, Income Tax Act, 1922, Contended That The Transactions In Question Were Saved Under Clause (A) Of The Proviso To F Section 24 Of The Act. G The Tribunal Held That The Transactions Entered Into By The Assessee Were In The Nature Of The Hedging Contracts And, Therefore, Saved Under Clause (A) Of The Proviso. The Revenue Obtained A Reference To The High Court On The H 49

Section 24Section 24(1)