“Section 193(1)”
The decision most relied on for Section 193(1) is Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (1 SCC 193), cited in 75 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 193(1)
A decree passed by a court or authority without inherent jurisdiction over the subject matter is a nullity, can be challenged at any stage including execution, and does not operate as res judicata, as such a fundamental defect cannot be cured by consent.
The Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii), introduced in 1983, widens the scope of the section and is not merely declaratory. It operates prospectively from April 1, 1979, and cannot be applied to periods prior to that date.
The Supreme Court in Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. v. CIT-IV held that depreciation is not available on a BSE membership card under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act as it is not a depreciable asset for the purpose of business or commercial rights of a similar nature.
The High Court's decision in Balasubramaniam, 269 ITR 1 (Bom), established that the Assistant Commissioner has the power to reopen assessments under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on a failure to disclose material facts. This implies the Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mayur Foundation, 193 ITR 624 (Bom), reinforces the principle that assessments can be reopened if crucial information was not presented by the assessee.
The expression 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay in filing an appeal is to be judged with reference to reasonableness and the conduct expected of a litigant acting with ordinary prudence, falling within the realm of normal human conduct.
Assessee must establish the actual financial liquidity position on the relevant date to prove that borrowed funds were used for business purposes, rather than merely showing that profits exceeded investments in the assessment year.
An order for the transfer of a case, even within the same city, must be on record. The explanation to Section 127 of the Income Tax Act clarifies that all proceedings, pending or future, stand transferred upon such an order.
Depreciation is allowable on a vehicle even if it was plied without a proper permit under the Motor Vehicles Act. The taxing authorities are justified in treating an investment as unexplained under section 69 if the assessee fails to prove its source.
