Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. DCIT – For the purposes of determining the quantum of deduction under section 80-I, the taxable income of the industrial undertaking is to be ascertained as if such undertaking were an independent unit owned by the assessee and the assessee had no other source of income; consequently, the unabsorbed losses/deprecation, etc. relating to the eligible industrial undertaking are to be taken into account in determining the quantum of deduction under section 80-I even though these may actually have been set off against the profits of the assessee from other sources of income of the assessee.
H.H. Maharaja v. ACIT – September 12, 2008 – Section 166 can be invoked only when the income is received by the assessee; unless and until the trustees exercise the discretion and distribute the income in favour of any of the beneficiaries, i.e. the assessee, such income cannot be said to be received by the assessee; merely on the basis of presumption, income cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee.
Mohanlal N. Shah HUF v ACIT – The option to or not to avail the benefit of indexation for the computation of capital gains on the transfer of each of the long term capital asset is with the assessee as provided in section 48; it is only after computing the capital gains as per section 48, can it be aggregated by setting off the loss under section 70 and it is then that the rate of tax as provided under section 112 is applied.
