Income Tax : Where a person required to furnish a return of income under Section 139, fails to do so within the time prescribed in sub-section ...
Income Tax : The Section 2(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contains an inclusive definition of the term business. There are differences betwe...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court, has held in CIT vs. Samara India(P) Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 93 , following the decision of Supreme Court in T...
Income Tax : The provisions of the Income-tax Act relating to allowances disclose that the expenditure or outgoing sought to be deducted should...
Income Tax : In CIT vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd. [2014] 221 TAXMAN 323, the Delhi High Court has observed (at page 341), that if the money paid rela...
Income Tax : In our view this is not a fair or proper procedure. If not in the first notice, at least at the time of furnishing the reasons the...
Income Tax : The assessee had challenged reopening of assessment on two grounds. The CIT(A) had accepted the arguments of the assessee, in ligh...
Income Tax : We noted that in the very first year i.e. AY 2011-12, the depreciation has already allowed the claim of depreciation. We noted tha...
Income Tax : The estimate of warranty made by the assessee on the basis of past history cannot be treated as a provision for any ascertained li...
Income Tax : Where no satisfaction had been recorded by the AO for initiation of penalty in the assessment order the same cannot invite the ass...
In The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission, Chirag Construction RMC [WRIT PETITION NO.1266 OF 2013, DECISION PRONOUNCED ON : 30 AUGUST 2013], the Bombay High Court observed the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise v/s. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries 231 ELT page 22.
The losses occurring to an assessee due to dacoity, theft or embezzlement, etc., may be claimed as deductible while making the income chargeable to income-tax under the head profits and gains of business or profession under section 28. The loss by theft is not covered by section 10(2) (xv) of the Income Tax Act, 1922
The Supreme Court in the case CIT v. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2009] 180 Taxman 514 (SC), has held, on the facts and circumstances of the case, that furnishing of bank guarantee cannot be equated with actual payment.
In CIT vs. Nirlon Synthetic Fibres & Chemicals Ltd. (1982) 137 ITR 1 (Bom) it was observed that expenditure incurred on inauguration ceremony of factory is a compelling necessity in modern times, it is a formality which an assessee has to incur after the business is set-up therefore it is an allowable deduction in terms of section 37(1).
There has been controversy from long about the limits on tax planning. The Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) had marked dividing line between the tax evasion and avoidance of tax through tax-planning. In this case hon’ble Supreme Court held that tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law. Colourable devices cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honourable to avoid the payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges.
The Supreme Court in CCIT vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (2002) 20 SITC 172 (SC) has laid down that the resort to section 41(1) can be taken only if the liability of the assessee can be said to have ceased finally and there is no possibility or reviving it. Also, it has held that an unilateral action on the part of the assessee by way of writing-off the liability in its accounts does not necessarily mean that the liability ceased in the eye of law.
Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (which corresponds to Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922) allows deduction, while computing the income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business or profession, of any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 of the Act and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee)
Recently SC held that in exercising legislative power, the legislature by mere declaration, without anything more, cannot directly overrule, revise or override a judicial decision. It can render judicial decision ineffective by enacting valid law on the topic within its legislative field fundamentally altering or changing its character retrospectively.
The word income has a special significance in Income-tax machinery as the income-tax is a tax upon the ‘income’. Section 2 (24) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961 [which corresponds to section 2 (6C) of the Income-tax Act, 1922] contains the inclusive definition of income.
