“Section 27(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 27Section 27(1)44 judgments

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)

E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

26 ITR 27 · 1954 · Supreme Court

256

citing judgments

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.

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT

27 ITR 34 · 1955 · Supreme Court

174

citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Chaphalkar Bro

88 Taxmann.com 178 · 2017 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

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.

Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax

116 Taxmann.com 701 · 2020 · High Court

citing judgments

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.

Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

27 ITR 126 · 1955 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

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.

Rajesh Kumar v. CIT

27 SCC 181 · 2007 · Reported

citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Hotline International Pvt. Ltd.

296 ITR 333 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

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.

Peter Vaz v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bangalore

128 Taxmann.com 180 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

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.

Judgments citing Section 27(1)

Shorline Hotel P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT- CC-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 253/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

Mohan Binda [2009]317 ITR 1 (SC) has explained the-scope of section 271(l)(c) thus: "Explanation 1, appended to section 27(1) provides that if that person fails to offer an explanation or the explanation offered by such person is found to be false, or the explanation offered

CIT vs. Narinder Kr Budhiraja

ITA - 1095 / 2011HC Delhi01 Jul 2014

For Appellant: Mr Roy ChaudhuriFor Respondent: Dr Rakesh Gupta, Mr Rishabh Kapoor, Mr Sohil

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69B

framed by this Court: “Whether did the ITAT fall into error in setting aside the penalty imposed upon the assessee under Section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.” 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the decision

Psb Industries India Pvt Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 792 / 2011HC Delhi11 Jul 2011

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 269USection 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was liable for penalty of `17,82,078/- under Section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in confirming imposition of penalty under Section

Astra Housing & Investment P.Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi New Delhi

ITA - 622 / 2008HC Delhi03 Jun 2011

Section 158Section 158BSection 260ASection 271(1)(c)

absence of such satisfaction, the penalty proceedings were bad. 7. The CIT(A) recorded the finding that satisfaction, as required in Section 27(1)(c), is not envisaged in Section 158BFA(2). While recording findings against the assessee in this regard, the CIT(A), on merits held that the Assessing ... Revenue and that satisfaction was required to be recorded by the Assessing Officer in this regard before proceedings to levy any penalty under Section 27(1)(c). Learned counsel relied upon various judgments in support of his submissions. A reference can be made to those, viz., Dilip N. Shroff