CHAPTER XI — ADDITIONAL INCOME-TAX ON UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS
CHAPTER XI — ADDITIONAL INCOME-TAX ON UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS
SECTION 105 — SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN COMPANIES
Case Laws & Commentary · Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) · Historic / Omitted Provision
Status: OMITTED. Section 105 was omitted by the Finance Act, 1987, with effect from 1 April 1988, along with the rest of Chapter XI.
Life of the provision: Part of the original Chapter XI of the 1961 Act (operative from assessment year 1962-63); amended from time to time before omission w.e.f. 1-4-1988.
Predecessor: section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (in its post-Finance Act, 1955 form, under which the additional tax fell on the company itself rather than being deemed a dividend in the shareholders' hands). The bulk of the case law on the Chapter is therefore reported under section 23A and applies directly to sections 104–109, which re-enacted the scheme.
Finance Act, 2026 impact: None. The section was omitted in 1988; the Finance Act, 2026 makes no change to an already-omitted provision. Retained here for completeness of the treatise and for residual litigation, limitation and historical-assessment situations.
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
A.1 Function within Chapter XI
Section 105 was a modifying provision sitting immediately under the charging section 104. Where section 104 imposed the general obligation to distribute the statutory percentage of distributable income, section 105 carved out special treatment for certain classes of company — in particular by varying the percentage of distribution required, or the manner of applying the charge, for companies of a specified description (for example companies mainly engaged in particular activities, or companies satisfying defined conditions). It worked hand-in-hand with the definitions in section 109 (which classified companies and prescribed the statutory percentages) and with the relief in section 107A.
A.2 The operative scheme (editorial summary)
The following is an editorial summary, not a verbatim reproduction (the verbatim text belongs in the companion Block-1 bare-Act file). Section 105 adjusted the section 104 obligation to the character of the company: the percentage of distributable income required to be distributed, and the way the charge applied, depended on the class into which the company fell. The differential treatment reflected the central policy of the Chapter — that the mischief of accumulating profits to shelter income from the higher personal rates was acute in closely-held and investment companies, and slight or absent in genuinely widely-held trading concerns.
A.3 Doctrinal themes
Because the section keyed the charge to the classification of the company, the threshold dispute in many cases was the company's character — whether it was an investment company (with income mainly from investments) or an active trading company, and whether the public were substantially interested. Those classification questions drew on the same body of authority that governed sections 108 and 109 (the controlling-block line). Even where the charge applied to a company within a particular class, the quantum question — whether a larger distribution could reasonably have been required — remained governed by the commercial-profits and smallness-of-profit principles: classification fixed the applicable percentage, while the commercial-profits enquiry fixed whether, and to what extent, the shortfall was exigible to the charge.
A.4 Repeal
Omitted by the Finance Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1-4-1988; no change by the Finance Act, 2026.
B. STATUTORY POSITION (verbatim heading & omission note; scheme summarised editorially)
Reproduced verbatim from the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Bare Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2025):
Special provisions for certain companies.
105. [Omitted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 1-4-1988.]
Chapter note (verbatim): [Chapter XI omitted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 1-4-1988. While sections 95 to 103 were omitted by the Finance Act, 1965, w.e.f. 1-4-1965, sections 104 to 109 were omitted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 1-4-1988.]
C. CASE LAW — CLUSTERED BY ISSUE
Cluster C-0 : Validity and object of the differential charge (cross-referenced from section 104)
Sardar Baldev Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi & Ajmer (1960) 40 ITR 605 (SC).
Facts: The reach and validity of section 23A were in question where the undistributed profits of a company controlled by a group were sought to be brought to charge, the assessee challenging the provision and its application.
Issue: Whether section 23A — the direct predecessor of Chapter XI — is constitutionally valid, and on what basis the assessing authority's satisfaction must rest.
Held: The Supreme Court upheld section 23A as a valid measure directed against the avoidance of personal taxation through the device of withholding distribution in companies controlled by a group. The provision was held to be a legitimate exercise of the taxing power; the officer's satisfaction was to be founded on objective material, and the statutory conditions and safeguards observed before the charge could be imposed.
Ratio / why it matters: The undistributed-profits charge is intra vires and anti-avoidance in object; it must be applied on objective satisfaction and within the statutory safeguards.
Relevance to this section: The foundational authority on the object, validity and character of the charge that section 104 re-enacted; it underpins the entire Chapter and the computation provisions of section 109.
Source: Supreme Court of India · (1960) 40 ITR 605 · leading authority on the validity of section 23A (added in the June 2026 revision; practitioners should confirm the precise report before citation).
Cluster C-1 : Classification of the company (the basis of the special treatment)
Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay (1961) 41 ITR 613 (SC).
Facts: The question was whether the company was one 'in which the public are substantially interested' within the Explanation to section 23A, a number of the shares being held by the directors. The Revenue contended that director-held shares could never be counted as held by the public.
Issue: The meaning of 'public' in the Explanation, and whether shares held by directors are necessarily excluded from the shareholding of the public.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the word 'public' is used in contradistinction to one or more persons who act in unison and among whom the voting power constitutes a controlling block. A shareholder belongs to the 'public' only where he holds his shares unconditionally and beneficially — that is, where the voting power attached to the shares is free, is not within the control of some other shareholder, and the registered holder is not a nominee of another. The High Court had erred in proceeding on the footing that shares held by directors could never qualify as shares held by the public: directors' shares are not automatically excluded, and may be 'public' shares if held unconditionally and beneficially and outside the controlling block.
Ratio / why it matters: 'Public' means those outside the controlling block who hold shares unconditionally and beneficially; the substance of control, not the designation 'director', is decisive.
Relevance to this section: Foundational to section 108 (savings for companies in which the public are substantially interested) and to the section 104 threshold, which both turn on this very classification.
Source: Supreme Court of India · (1961) 41 ITR 613 · verified via Indian Kanoon / CaseMine.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Jubilee Mills Ltd. (1963) 48 ITR 9 (SC).
Facts: The managing agents of the company were partners of a firm who, between themselves, held more than 75 per cent of the voting power. The question was whether the company was one in which the public were substantially interested.
Issue: Whether a group capable of controlling more than 75 per cent of the voting power takes the company outside the 'public substantially interested' category, and whether proof of actual concerted action is required.
Held: The Supreme Court held that where a group holds more than 75 per cent of the voting power and is in a position to control the affairs of the company, the company is not one in which the public are substantially interested. The test of 'control' is whether the group could, if it so chose, act together; it is not necessary to prove that the members actually acted in concert — the existence of the controlling block and the capacity to act together is sufficient.
Ratio / why it matters: A controlling block is established by the capacity (de facto control) to act in concert, not by proof of actual concerted exercise of voting power.
Relevance to this section: Directly governs the section 108 savings and the section 104 threshold; defines when a closely-held company falls within the additional-tax net.
Source: Supreme Court of India · (1963) 48 ITR 9 (decided 17 September 1962) · verified via Indian Kanoon.
Cluster C-2 : The commercial-profits measure applied across the classes
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gangadhar Banerjee & Co. (Private) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 176 (SC).
Facts: A private limited company declared a modest dividend for the relevant accounting year. The Income-tax Officer, taking the view that a larger dividend could and should have been declared, invoked section 23A and levied the additional super-tax on the shortfall in distribution.
Issue: What is the correct standard for deciding whether the payment of a dividend (or a larger dividend) would be 'unreasonable'; what profits and circumstances the officer must weigh; and how the tax liability of the company is to be treated in arriving at the distributable surplus.
Held: The Supreme Court laid down that the Income-tax Officer, in deciding whether the declared dividend is unreasonable, must put himself in the position of a prudent businessman or a director of the company and deal with the matter from the businessman's point of view and not that of the tax-gatherer. He is to take an overall view of the company's financial position — losses of earlier years, the present profits, the reasonable requirements of the business and like commercial considerations. Where the regular assessment has been completed, the actual tax assessed (not the estimated tax or the figure in the balance-sheet) is to be deducted in computing the commercial/distributable profits. The provision operates as a burden and the onus lies on the Revenue to establish that its conditions are satisfied before an order is made.
Ratio / why it matters: The reasonableness of a dividend under the undistributed-profits regime is a businessman's question answered on the company's commercial profits and overall financial picture; assessed tax is deductible in arriving at distributable profit; and the onus is on the Revenue.
Relevance to this section: The leading authority on the working of section 104 — it supplies the 'prudent businessman' test, the overall-circumstances enquiry and the rule for deducting assessed tax that section 109's 'distributable income' computation presupposes.
Source: Supreme Court of India · (1965) 57 ITR 176 · verified via Indian Kanoon.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City v. Bipinchandra Maganlal & Co. Ltd. (1961) 41 ITR 290 (SC).
Facts: A company in which the public were not substantially interested distributed dividends below the statutory measure. The dispute turned on the figure against which the shortfall (and the question of 'smallness of profit') was to be tested — the assessed total income, or the company's real, commercial profits. The assessable income had been swollen by notional and statutory adjustments (for example the balancing charge brought to tax on the sale of depreciable assets, and the disallowance of expenditure actually incurred), so that the income exigible to tax substantially exceeded the profit a businessman would regard as available for distribution.
Issue: Whether, for the purpose of section 23A of the 1922 Act, the 'smallness of profit' and the reasonableness of the dividend are to be judged by reference to the assessed income or by reference to the company's commercial (accounting) profits.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the 'smallness of profit' must be adjudged in the light of commercial or accounting profits, and not the assessable income. In arriving at the assessable profits the Income-tax Officer may disallow many expenses actually incurred and may, in computing income, include many items on a notional basis; profits assessed for tax are therefore not the same thing as the commercial profits out of which alone a dividend can in fact be paid. It is the latter that govern the reasonableness enquiry.
Ratio / why it matters: Commercial profits — not the assessed total income — are the touchstone for testing 'smallness of profit' and the reasonableness of a dividend under the undistributed-profits regime. This is the foundational proposition later carried into the working of section 104.
Relevance to this section: Directly governs section 104 (and the definition of 'distributable income' in section 109): the additional-tax enquiry begins from real, distributable commercial profit, not from the assessment figure.
Source: Supreme Court of India · (1961) 41 ITR 290 · verified via Indian Kanoon / CaseMine.
D. PRACTITIONER'S NOTE
(1) Identify the class first. The special treatment under section 105 turned entirely on the company's description; in any residual matter, fix the classification (investment / trading; public-interest / closely-held) before arguing quantum.
(2) The classification tests survive. The distinction between investment / holding companies and active trading companies, and between closely-held and widely-held companies, lives on in section 2(18), section 2(22)(e) (deemed dividend in closely-held companies) and section 79 (carry-forward of losses in closely-held companies); the controlling-block authorities remain the working tools.
E. SOURCES & CITATIONS
Statutory composition verified against the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Bare Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2025), Chapter XI, which records: “[Chapter XI omitted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 1-4-1988. While sections 95 to 103 were omitted by the Finance Act, 1965, w.e.f. 1-4-1965, sections 104 to 109 were omitted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 1-4-1988.]” The marginal headings and omission notes quoted in Part B are reproduced verbatim from that source.
Finance Act, 2026: the in-house Finance Act 2026 Amendment Tracker records no item touching sections 104 to 109 or Chapter XI; the chapter having been omitted in 1988, the Finance Act, 2026 effects no change.
Case citations: the eight load-bearing authorities (Gangadhar Banerjee, Bipinchandra Maganlal, Asiatic Textiles, Williamson Diamonds; Raghuvanshi Mills, Jubilee Mills, East Coast Commercial, Sahu Jain) were web-verified (June 2026) against publicly reported sources (Indian Kanoon, CaseMine, CourtKutchehry and the Income Tax Reports as cited) and recur across the section files by design. The authorities added in the June 2026 revision (Sardar Baldev Singh; and, as analogous principle for the machinery sections, S.S. Gadgil, K.M. Sharma, Chhugamal Rajpal and Sirpur Paper Mills) are well-established Supreme Court decisions cited from their ITR/AIR reports; the precise report should be confirmed before filing.
Caveat: this material is treatise-style commentary for practitioners and academic use on a historic, omitted Chapter; it is not legal advice. Section 104 and its predecessor section 23A produced a large body of authority — the decisions selected are the leading and representative ones. Nothing here is invented; where a particular section number generated no distinct reported corpus, that is stated plainly.
CHAPTER XI — ADDITIONAL INCOME-TAX ON UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS
SECTION 105 — SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN COMPANIES
Case Laws & Commentary · Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) · Historic / Omitted Provision
Status: OMITTED. Section 105 was omitted by the Finance Act, 1987, with effect from 1 April 1988, along with the rest of Chapter XI.
Life of the provision: Part of the original Chapter XI of the 1961 Act (operative from assessment year 1962-63); amended from time to time before omission w.e.f. 1-4-1988.
Predecessor: section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (in its post-Finance Act, 1955 form, under which the additional tax fell on the company itself rather than being deemed a dividend in the shareholders' hands). The bulk of the case law on the Chapter is therefore reported under section 23A and applies directly to sections 104–109, which re-enacted the scheme.
Finance Act, 2026 impact: None. The section was omitted in 1988; the Finance Act, 2026 makes no change to an already-omitted provision. Retained here for completeness of the treatise and for residual litigation, limitation and historical-assessment situations.
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
A.1 Function within Chapter XI
Section 105 was a modifying provision sitting immediately under the charging section 104. Where section 104 imposed the general obligation to distribute the statutory percentage of distributable income, section 105 carved out special treatment for certain classes of company — in particular by varying the percentage of distribution required, or the manner of applying the charge, for companies of a specified description (for example companies mainly engaged in particular activities, or companies satisfying defined conditions). It worked hand-in-hand with the definitions in section 109 (which classified companies and prescribed the statutory percentages) and with the relief in section 107A.
A.2 The operative scheme (editorial summary)
The following is an editorial summary, not a verbatim reproduction (the verbatim text belongs in the companion Block-1 bare-Act file). Section 105 adjusted the section 104 obligation to the character of the company: the percentage of distributable income required to be distributed, and the way the charge applied, depended on the class into which the company fell. The differential treatment reflected the central policy of the Chapter — that the mischief of accumulating profits to shelter income from the higher personal rates was acute in closely-held and investment companies, and slight or absent in genuinely widely-held trading concerns.
A.3 Doctrinal themes
Because the section keyed the charge to the classification of the company, the threshold dispute in many cases was the company's character — whether it was an investment company (with income mainly from investments) or an active trading company, and whether the public were substantially interested. Those classification questions drew on the same body of authority that governed sections 108 and 109 (the controlling-block line). Even where the charge applied to a company within a particular class, the quantum question — whether a larger distribution could reasonably have been required — remained governed by the commercial-profits and smallness-of-profit principles: classification fixed the applicable percentage, while the commercial-profits enquiry fixed whether, and to what extent, the shortfall was exigible to the charge.
A.4 Repeal
Omitted by the Finance Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1-4-1988; no change by the Finance Act, 2026.
B. STATUTORY POSITION (verbatim heading & omission note; scheme summarised editorially)
Reproduced verbatim from the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Bare Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2025):
Special provisions for certain companies.
105. [Omitted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 1-4-1988.]
Chapter note (verbatim): [Chapter XI omitted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 1-4-1988. While sections 95 to 103 were omitted by the Finance Act, 1965, w.e.f. 1-4-1965, sections 104 to 109 were omitted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 1-4-1988.]
C. CASE LAW — CLUSTERED BY ISSUE
Cluster C-0 : Validity and object of the differential charge (cross-referenced from section 104)
Sardar Baldev Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi & Ajmer (1960) 40 ITR 605 (SC).
Facts: The reach and validity of section 23A were in question where the undistributed profits of a company controlled by a group were sought to be brought to charge, the assessee challenging the provision and its application.
Issue: Whether section 23A — the direct predecessor of Chapter XI — is constitutionally valid, and on what basis the assessing authority's satisfaction must rest.
Held: The Supreme Court upheld section 23A as a valid measure directed against the avoidance of personal taxation through the device of withholding distribution in companies controlled by a group. The provision was held to be a legitimate exercise of the taxing power; the officer's satisfaction was to be founded on objective material, and the statutory conditions and safeguards observed before the charge could be imposed.
Ratio / why it matters: The undistributed-profits charge is intra vires and anti-avoidance in object; it must be applied on objective satisfaction and within the statutory safeguards.
Relevance to this section: The foundational authority on the object, validity and character of the charge that section 104 re-enacted; it underpins the entire Chapter and the computation provisions of section 109.
Source: Supreme Court of India · (1960) 40 ITR 605 · leading authority on the validity of section 23A (added in the June 2026 revision; practitioners should confirm the precise report before citation).
Cluster C-1 : Classification of the company (the basis of the special treatment)
Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay (1961) 41 ITR 613 (SC).
Facts: The question was whether the company was one 'in which the public are substantially interested' within the Explanation to section 23A, a number of the shares being held by the directors. The Revenue contended that director-held shares could never be counted as held by the public.
Issue: The meaning of 'public' in the Explanation, and whether shares held by directors are necessarily excluded from the shareholding of the public.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the word 'public' is used in contradistinction to one or more persons who act in unison and among whom the voting power constitutes a controlling block. A shareholder belongs to the 'public' only where he holds his shares unconditionally and beneficially — that is, where the voting power attached to the shares is free, is not within the control of some other shareholder, and the registered holder is not a nominee of another. The High Court had erred in proceeding on the footing that shares held by directors could never qualify as shares held by the public: directors' shares are not automatically excluded, and may be 'public' shares if held unconditionally and beneficially and outside the controlling block.
Ratio / why it matters: 'Public' means those outside the controlling block who hold shares unconditionally and beneficially; the substance of control, not the designation 'director', is decisive.
Relevance to this section: Foundational to section 108 (savings for companies in which the public are substantially interested) and to the section 104 threshold, which both turn on this very classification.
Source: Supreme Court of India · (1961) 41 ITR 613 · verified via Indian Kanoon / CaseMine.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Jubilee Mills Ltd. (1963) 48 ITR 9 (SC).
Facts: The managing agents of the company were partners of a firm who, between themselves, held more than 75 per cent of the voting power. The question was whether the company was one in which the public were substantially interested.
Issue: Whether a group capable of controlling more than 75 per cent of the voting power takes the company outside the 'public substantially interested' category, and whether proof of actual concerted action is required.
Held: The Supreme Court held that where a group holds more than 75 per cent of the voting power and is in a position to control the affairs of the company, the company is not one in which the public are substantially interested. The test of 'control' is whether the group could, if it so chose, act together; it is not necessary to prove that the members actually acted in concert — the existence of the controlling block and the capacity to act together is sufficient.
Ratio / why it matters: A controlling block is established by the capacity (de facto control) to act in concert, not by proof of actual concerted exercise of voting power.
Relevance to this section: Directly governs the section 108 savings and the section 104 threshold; defines when a closely-held company falls within the additional-tax net.
Source: Supreme Court of India · (1963) 48 ITR 9 (decided 17 September 1962) · verified via Indian Kanoon.
Cluster C-2 : The commercial-profits measure applied across the classes
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gangadhar Banerjee & Co. (Private) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 176 (SC).
Facts: A private limited company declared a modest dividend for the relevant accounting year. The Income-tax Officer, taking the view that a larger dividend could and should have been declared, invoked section 23A and levied the additional super-tax on the shortfall in distribution.
Issue: What is the correct standard for deciding whether the payment of a dividend (or a larger dividend) would be 'unreasonable'; what profits and circumstances the officer must weigh; and how the tax liability of the company is to be treated in arriving at the distributable surplus.
Held: The Supreme Court laid down that the Income-tax Officer, in deciding whether the declared dividend is unreasonable, must put himself in the position of a prudent businessman or a director of the company and deal with the matter from the businessman's point of view and not that of the tax-gatherer. He is to take an overall view of the company's financial position — losses of earlier years, the present profits, the reasonable requirements of the business and like commercial considerations. Where the regular assessment has been completed, the actual tax assessed (not the estimated tax or the figure in the balance-sheet) is to be deducted in computing the commercial/distributable profits. The provision operates as a burden and the onus lies on the Revenue to establish that its conditions are satisfied before an order is made.
Ratio / why it matters: The reasonableness of a dividend under the undistributed-profits regime is a businessman's question answered on the company's commercial profits and overall financial picture; assessed tax is deductible in arriving at distributable profit; and the onus is on the Revenue.
Relevance to this section: The leading authority on the working of section 104 — it supplies the 'prudent businessman' test, the overall-circumstances enquiry and the rule for deducting assessed tax that section 109's 'distributable income' computation presupposes.
Source: Supreme Court of India · (1965) 57 ITR 176 · verified via Indian Kanoon.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City v. Bipinchandra Maganlal & Co. Ltd. (1961) 41 ITR 290 (SC).
Facts: A company in which the public were not substantially interested distributed dividends below the statutory measure. The dispute turned on the figure against which the shortfall (and the question of 'smallness of profit') was to be tested — the assessed total income, or the company's real, commercial profits. The assessable income had been swollen by notional and statutory adjustments (for example the balancing charge brought to tax on the sale of depreciable assets, and the disallowance of expenditure actually incurred), so that the income exigible to tax substantially exceeded the profit a businessman would regard as available for distribution.
Issue: Whether, for the purpose of section 23A of the 1922 Act, the 'smallness of profit' and the reasonableness of the dividend are to be judged by reference to the assessed income or by reference to the company's commercial (accounting) profits.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the 'smallness of profit' must be adjudged in the light of commercial or accounting profits, and not the assessable income. In arriving at the assessable profits the Income-tax Officer may disallow many expenses actually incurred and may, in computing income, include many items on a notional basis; profits assessed for tax are therefore not the same thing as the commercial profits out of which alone a dividend can in fact be paid. It is the latter that govern the reasonableness enquiry.
Ratio / why it matters: Commercial profits — not the assessed total income — are the touchstone for testing 'smallness of profit' and the reasonableness of a dividend under the undistributed-profits regime. This is the foundational proposition later carried into the working of section 104.
Relevance to this section: Directly governs section 104 (and the definition of 'distributable income' in section 109): the additional-tax enquiry begins from real, distributable commercial profit, not from the assessment figure.
Source: Supreme Court of India · (1961) 41 ITR 290 · verified via Indian Kanoon / CaseMine.
D. PRACTITIONER'S NOTE
(1) Identify the class first. The special treatment under section 105 turned entirely on the company's description; in any residual matter, fix the classification (investment / trading; public-interest / closely-held) before arguing quantum.
(2) The classification tests survive. The distinction between investment / holding companies and active trading companies, and between closely-held and widely-held companies, lives on in section 2(18), section 2(22)(e) (deemed dividend in closely-held companies) and section 79 (carry-forward of losses in closely-held companies); the controlling-block authorities remain the working tools.
E. SOURCES & CITATIONS
Statutory composition verified against the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Bare Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2025), Chapter XI, which records: “[Chapter XI omitted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 1-4-1988. While sections 95 to 103 were omitted by the Finance Act, 1965, w.e.f. 1-4-1965, sections 104 to 109 were omitted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 1-4-1988.]” The marginal headings and omission notes quoted in Part B are reproduced verbatim from that source.
Finance Act, 2026: the in-house Finance Act 2026 Amendment Tracker records no item touching sections 104 to 109 or Chapter XI; the chapter having been omitted in 1988, the Finance Act, 2026 effects no change.
Case citations: the eight load-bearing authorities (Gangadhar Banerjee, Bipinchandra Maganlal, Asiatic Textiles, Williamson Diamonds; Raghuvanshi Mills, Jubilee Mills, East Coast Commercial, Sahu Jain) were web-verified (June 2026) against publicly reported sources (Indian Kanoon, CaseMine, CourtKutchehry and the Income Tax Reports as cited) and recur across the section files by design. The authorities added in the June 2026 revision (Sardar Baldev Singh; and, as analogous principle for the machinery sections, S.S. Gadgil, K.M. Sharma, Chhugamal Rajpal and Sirpur Paper Mills) are well-established Supreme Court decisions cited from their ITR/AIR reports; the precise report should be confirmed before filing.
Caveat: this material is treatise-style commentary for practitioners and academic use on a historic, omitted Chapter; it is not legal advice. Section 104 and its predecessor section 23A produced a large body of authority — the decisions selected are the leading and representative ones. Nothing here is invented; where a particular section number generated no distinct reported corpus, that is stated plainly.