“Section 33(6)”
The decision most relied on for Section 33(6) is Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar (1 SCC 591), cited in 225 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 33(6)
The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.
Where an expense is incurred for the purpose of acquiring a capital asset, and that asset is subsequently sold, the expenditure must be considered as part of the cost of acquisition of that asset for the purpose of calculating capital gains. This is because the expense forms an integral part of the cost of acquiring the asset, not an expenditure of revenue nature.
Depreciation is not allowed on goodwill if it arises from book entries and has no identifiable cost of acquisition. This applies even when goodwill is acquired as part of a scheme of arrangement or amalgamation.
This case is authority for the proposition that where income has escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are valid.
An assessee can challenge reassessment proceedings as being without jurisdiction in collateral proceedings for rectification under section 154, even if they have not appealed the reassessment order.
Additions can be made based on seized documents if the assessee fails to justify their stand regarding unaccounted sales or the nature of expenditure.