“Section 27(1)”
The decision most relied on for Section 27(1) is E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (26 ITR 27), cited in 256 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 27(1)
Income is taxable only when it represents real income, not notional income. It accrues only when there is a vested right to receive it, typically upon the occurrence of a transfer or event, rather than merely on a time basis.
The Supreme Court established the foundational test for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure, holding that the aim and object of the expenditure and whether it brings into existence an asset or an advantage of an enduring nature determines its character, irrespective of the payment method. An advantage lasting five years or more can be considered enduring.
Subsidies granted under a Government Industrial Scheme to accelerate industrial development and generate employment are capital in nature, determined by the 'purpose test', regardless of the timing, source, or form of the subsidy.
Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules allows a respondent to defend a favourable order of the CIT(A) by raising grounds decided against them, even without filing an appeal or cross-objection. Such issues can be raised orally and for the first time before the Tribunal.
The Assessing Officer is not bound by the technical rules of evidence and pleadings and is entitled to act on material that may not be admissible as evidence in a court of law during assessment proceedings.
Where civil or evil consequences ensue from the action of a statutory authority, the principles of natural justice must be followed, even if not explicitly stated in the statute. Failure to comply with these principles may render a statute ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.
Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 specifies the modes for serving notices, including by post or summons under the Code of Civil Procedure. A valid service of notice is essential for assessment or reassessment proceedings, and its absence renders such proceedings bad in law.
An assessee can raise an objection regarding the validity of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction for reopening a concluded assessment even if the issue was not raised before the CIT(Appeals), by invoking Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. This is permissible if the issue is ancillary to the main issue and does not require additional evidence.
