“Section 144(1)(b)”
The decision most relied on for Section 144(1)(b) is CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (297 CTR 614), cited in 659 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 144(1)(b)
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.
The discount arising from the grant of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it is an ascertained liability, not a contingent one, and constitutes a revenue expense rather than a capital expense.
The Supreme Court holds that an Assessing Officer, when making a best judgment assessment or estimating income, must act fairly, honestly, and rationally, basing the estimation on available material and avoiding arbitrary or capricious decisions. Adherence to natural justice principles is crucial during assessment proceedings.
Under the mercantile system of accounting, revenue and expenses are matched on an accrual basis, comparing income earned and expenses incurred irrespective of cash flow. If the Department seeks to substitute an assessee's chosen method of accounting, the burden is on the Department to prove that the existing method is incorrect or distorts profits.
To levy a penalty under section 271(1)(b), the Assessing Officer (AO) must record satisfaction in the assessment order. Mere initiation of penalty proceedings without such recorded satisfaction does not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty.
When considering an application for condonation of delay, courts must adopt a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented approach, understanding 'sufficient cause' in its proper spirit to serve the ends of justice and avoid legalizing injustice.
The time limit for objecting to an Assessing Officer's territorial jurisdiction under Section 124(3) does not apply when an assessee claims the officer acted wholly without jurisdiction or outside the authority of law. Objections to jurisdiction not relating to territorial matters are not subject to these time limits.
The addition of cash deposits to an assessee's income under Section 68 is justified when the Assessment Officer notices huge cash deposits, as the onus is on the assessee to explain their nature and source.
