“Section 120(4)(b)”
The decision most relied on for Section 120(4)(b) is CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (305 ITR 137), cited in 96 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 120(4)(b)
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.
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.
When the valuation of closing stock is adjusted to include CENVAT or Modvat credit under Section 145A, a corresponding adjustment must also be made to the opening stock.
When the Assessing Officer revalues the closing stock, the opening stock must also be revalued on the same basis to ensure consistency in the method of accounting and proper computation of business income.
The computation of deduction under Section 80HHC requires applying the formula: Profits derived from exports = (Profits of the business x Export Turnover) / Total Turnover. For this calculation, miscellaneous income, sundry sales, and income from services, if not directly relatable to export activity, are generally to be excluded from "profits of the business" and "total turnover".
Payments made by an assessee to release property from an encumbrance or settle disputes, which are essential for a sale transaction to materialize, are allowable as a deduction under Section 48 of the Income-tax Act for computing capital gains. Such expenditure either reduces the full value of consideration or is deductible from it.
An appellate tribunal ought to remand a matter rather than set aside assessments entirely when jurisdiction is in question.
A credit amount outstanding for several years cannot be treated as a remission or cessation of a trading liability under Section 41(1) merely because the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the transaction or because the liability is barred by limitation.
