Income Tax Judgements

The ex-gratia payment in excess of the limits prescribed under the payment of Bonus Act either under section 36(1)(ii) or section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, is allowable as business expenditure although the payment does not cover contractual or cus

Where the assessee is carrying on an illegal activity which is treated as a business, any loss arising in such business as a result of confiscation by the authorities is an allowable loss. However, where the assessee is carrying on a lawful business,

The ex-gratia payment in excess of the limits prescribed under the payment of Bonus Act either under section 36(1)(ii) or section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, is allowable as business expenditure although the payment does not cover contractual or cus

Rectification of an order stems from the fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the error and to disturb the finality.

Whether the incentive subsidy received by the assessee is a capital receipt not includible in the total income

CIT cannot disarray the AAR. An attempt to belittle the role of this Authority in the statutory scheme of adjudication cannot be countenanced.

Judgement of AAR can be taken to Supreme Court only after being challenged before a High Court.

If a gift does not have any advertisement value, it cannot be deemed to fall within the category of advertisement as understood for the purposes of section 37(3) read with rule 6B

There is no provision under the Finance (No. 2) Act specifically conferring any power on the designated authority (CIT) to cancel the certificate so issued under section 90(2); the second proviso to section 90 only enables the CIT to amend the certif