“Section 142(1)(ii)”
The decision most relied on for Section 142(1)(ii) is CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (142 ITR 493), cited in 95 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 142(1)(ii)
Pure reimbursement of expenditure does not constitute income in the nature of royalty or fees for technical services, therefore eliminating the obligation to deduct tax at source.
Protective assessments should not be deleted or disposed of by lower authorities, but rather allowed to remain in effect until the related substantive assessment proceedings attain finality before the High Court or Supreme Court.
Section 35(2AB), an incentive provision, allows weighted deduction for expenditure 'on in-house research or development facility' even if related activities like clinical trials are conducted externally, provided they are for the in-house research. This requires a liberal interpretation of the provision.
An adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(ii) or (v) of the Income-tax Act cannot be made without affording the assessee an opportunity to explain their case, as considerations like Section 80AC(ii) do not fall within the scope of adjustments permissible at the section 143(1) stage.
The assessment order under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is vitiated if the Assessing Officer fails to record satisfaction that the documents seized belong to the assessee.
Depreciation is allowable on goodwill as an intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) when it arises from a scheme of amalgamation or similar corporate restructuring.
Once an Assessing Officer forms a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and issues a notice under section 148, they can assess or reassess income related to other issues not originally included in the reasons recorded.
When interest-free funds are available to an assessee, it is presumed that investments were made out of such interest-free funds.
