“Section 120(1)”
The decision most relied on for Section 120(1) is Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (155 ITR 120), cited in 229 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 120(1)
For computing the deduction under Section 80M, only the net dividend income (gross dividend income after reducing expenses attributable to earning it, as per Section 57(iii) and the principle in Section 80AB) is eligible. The case also holds that tax authorities are not bound to perpetuate an error from a previous assessment year, as each year is a separate unit and consistency cannot override substantive justice.
This case outlines the fundamental tests for invoking Section 263, holding that an assessment order is 'erroneous' if based on incorrect facts or incorrect application of law, or passed without due inquiry. For revision, both the conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue must be fulfilled.
When no specific statutory period of limitation exists, proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, particularly for payments to non-residents, must be initiated within a reasonable period of four years. This limitation also applies to consequential penalty proceedings under Section 271C.
Section 124(3) of the Income-tax Act, which restricts an assessee from objecting to an Assessing Officer's jurisdiction, applies only to disputes concerning territorial jurisdiction as conferred by Section 120(1) or (2). It does not apply to objections regarding the Assessing Officer's inherent jurisdiction to frame an assessment.
The disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn exempt income under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned by the assessee in that assessment year.
An assessee who participates in assessment proceedings without challenging the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction, particularly concerning a Section 148 notice for reassessment, cannot subsequently dispute that jurisdiction.
An appellate authority can admit additional legal grounds for the first time, even if not raised earlier, provided these grounds are purely legal, go to the root of the matter, and the relevant facts for their adjudication are already on record.
An Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cannot reach a conclusion contrary to an earlier decision by another bench of the same Tribunal on identical facts, as the Tribunal acts as a consistent institution regardless of changes in its members.
