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)

The Oriental Investment Co. Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay

CIVIL APPEAL No. 153/1954Supreme Court22 May 1957

Bench: 3 Judges

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madhya Pradesh and Bhopal vs. Sodra Devi

CIVIL APPEAL No. 322/1955Supreme Court17 May 1957

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 66A(2)

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. The Provident Investment Co., Ltd

CIVIL APPEAL No. 179/1954Supreme Court15 May 1957

Bench: 3 Judges

Meenakshi Mills, Madurai vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras

In the result, the appeals fail, and are dismissed

CIVIL APPEAL No. 124/1954Supreme Court26 Sept 1956

Bench: 3 Judges

Ravula Subba Rao and Another vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras

CIVIL APPEAL No. 56/1954Supreme Court09 May 1956

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 26Section 59Section 66(1)

Madan Gopal Bagla vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal

CIVIL APPEAL No. 6/1954Supreme Court08 May 1956

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 10Section 66Section 66(1)

Messrs Mela Ram & Sons vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Punjab

CIVIL APPEAL No. 17/1954Supreme Court21 Feb 1956

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 31

Dulichand Lakshminarayan vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Nagpur

CIVIL APPEAL No. 195/1955Supreme Court17 Feb 1956

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 2Section 26Section 4

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras vs. Mysore Chromite Limited

CIVIL APPEAL No. 117/1953Supreme Court01 Nov 1954

Bench: 5 Judges

General Family Pension Fund vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal

CIVIL APPEAL No. 144/1953Supreme Court01 Nov 1954

Bench: 5 Judges

Section 10Section 10(7)Section 15Section 2(11)Section 26(3)Section 66(1)

Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills vs. The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax

CIVIL APPEAL No. 145/1953Supreme Court25 Oct 1954

Bench: 5 Judges

Section 10Section 2(5)Section 21Section 5Section 66(1)

The Liquidators of Pursa Limited vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar

Appeal is allowed and the

CIVIL APPEAL No. 33/1953Supreme Court09 Feb 1954

Bench: The Commencement Of This Constitution May Within Three Months From Such Com- Mencement Be Submitted To Thefor His Certification ; & Thereupon, If Theby Pub- Lic Notification So Certifies, ,It Shall Not Be Called In Question In Any Court On The Ground That It Contra- Venes The Provisions Of Clause (2) Of This Article Or Has Contravened The Provisions Of Sub-Section (2) Of Section 299 Of The Government Of India Act, 1935." It Is Not Disputed That The Madras Act Xxvi Of 1948 Does Fulfil All The Requirements Mentioned Above. Consequently, It Is Not Possible For Us To Allow The Ap- Pellants To Raise The Contentions Which The Learned Counsel On Their Behalf Wants To Raise. The Result Is That The Appeals Would Stand Dismissed, But In The Circumstances Of This Case We Shall Make No Order As To Costs. Appeals Dismissed. Agent For The Appellants : S. Subramanian. Agent For The Respondents : R. H. Dhebar. The Liquidators Of Pursa Limited V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar. [Mehr Chand Mahajan C.J., S. R. Das, Ghulam Hasan & Jagannadhadas Jj. J Income-Tax Act (Xi Of 1922) S. 10(2) (Vii) Proviso 2- Any Such Machinery Or. Plant Must Have Been Used In The Account- J·Ng Year-Section 66-Finding Of Fact-When Appeal Court Can Intervene. The Fundamental Idea Underlying The Words Used In The Definition Of "Business" In S. 2( 4) Of The Income-Tax Act Is The Continuous Exercise Of An Activity & The Same Central Idea Is Implicit In The W~R?S ."Carried On By Him" Occurring In S. 10( 1) & Those Cr1Ttcal \Vords Are An Essential Constituent Of That Which Is To Be Produce The Taxable Income & Therefore The 1954 Z...,Wlt1' Ef It:H"7";-.. V. T Lw St<H Ef -· Mw.Hnj<A]. 1954 P,......, 9·

Section 10Section 299Section 66Section 66(1)

Commissioner of Income-Tax/Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City vs. Messrs. Bhogilal Laherchand Including Batliboi & Co., Bombay

CIVIL APPEAL No. 160/1950Supreme Court18 Dec 1953

Bench: 4 Judges

For Respondent: G. H. Rajadhyaksha
Section 42Section 66

Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras

CIVIL APPEAL No. 11/1952Supreme Court08 Dec 1953

Bench: 3 Judges

For Appellant: C. P. Lal
Section 10Section 11(2)Section 66

Kshetr.A Mohan-Sannyasi. Charan Sadhukhan vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, West Bengal

Appeal is dismissed

CIVIL APPEAL No. 173/1952Supreme Court20 Oct 1953

Bench: 5 Judges

For Appellant: G. H. RajadhyakshaFor Respondent: S. Subra.manian
Section 21Section 66(1)Section 8

Chainrup Sampatram vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal

CIVIL APPEAL No. 142/1952Supreme Court09 Oct 1953

Bench: 5 Judges

Section 66

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City vs. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd

CIVIL APPEAL No. 157/1952Supreme Court08 Oct 1953

Bench: 5 Judges

For Appellant: P. K. MukherjeeFor Respondent: G. H. Rajadhyaksha
Section 10

Allahabad Bank Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal

CIVIL APPEAL No. 161/1952Supreme Court08 Oct 1953

Bench: The Judgment Under Appeal Income-Tax, Was Delivered. West Bengal Dissent Has Been Expressed In The Judgment Under Appeal From The Recent Decision Of The Bombay High Court In New Shorrock Spinning & 1L1 Anuf Acturing Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay('). The Facts Of That Case Are Entirely Different From The Facts Of The Case Before Us & That Decision Has No Manner Of Application To The Present Case. It Is, There- Fore, Unnecessary For Us To Discuss Or Express Any Opinion As To Whether The Observations To Be Found In The Judgment In That Case Are Or Are Not Well-Founded. For Reasons Stated Above, We Accept This Appeal & Hold That The Answer To The Question Referred By The Appellate Tribunal To The High Court Should Be In The Negative. The Respondent Company Must Pay The Costs Of The Appellant In This Court As Well As In The High Court. Appeal Allowed. Agent For The Appellant: G. H. Rajadhyaksha. Agent For The Respondent: S. C. Banerjee. Allahabad Bank Ltd. V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West Bengal. [Patanjali Sastri C.J;, S.R. Das, Vivian Bose, Ghulam Hasan & Bhagwati Jj.] Income-Tax Act (Xi Of 1922). S. 10 (2) (Xv)-Contribntion Lo Trust For Payment Of Pension To Employees-Tvhether Bitsiness Expend- Iture-Payment Of Pension & Amount Thereof Left To Discretion Of Employer-No Obligation On Tr·Nstees To Pny Pension-Validity Of Trust. (1) [1950] 18 I.T.R. 712; A.I.R. 1950 Born. 39L V. Messrs. J Eewanlal Ltd. Dasj. 1963 Oct. 8

For Appellant: G. H. RajadhyakshaFor Respondent: S. C. Banerjee
Section 66(1)

Commissioner of Income-Tax. West Bengal vs. Messrs .Jeewanlal Ltd

CIVIL APPEAL No. 78/1952Supreme Court08 Oct 1953

Bench: 5 Judges

Section 21Section 66(1)

Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal vs. A. W. Figg}Es & Co., and Others

CIVIL APPEAL No. 77/1952Supreme Court24 Sept 1953

Bench: 3 Judges

For Appellant: S. 0. BanerjeeFor Respondent: G. H. Rajadhyaksha
Section 66(1)