“Section 52(2)”
The decision most relied on for Section 52(2) is India Cements Ltd. v. CIT (60 ITR 52), cited in 247 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 52(2)
Expenses incurred for obtaining a loan for the purpose of the assessee's business, such as debenture discount, bank guarantee charges, and stamp duty, are considered revenue expenditure. These liabilities, though potentially spread over time, are deductible as revenue expenses.
The burden of proving an understatement of consideration or the receipt of 'on-money' lies solely with the Revenue, which must provide cogent evidence of actual receipt of higher consideration, beyond mere estimates or suspicion. Additions cannot be made based on assumptions like differences from circle rates without such evidence.
When assessing income from undisclosed or unrecorded sales, the entire sale proceeds cannot be added to the assessee's income; instead, only the net profit embedded in such unaccounted sales, determined by applying the assessee's net profit rate, should be taxed.
Where purchases are accepted as genuine and a deduction allowed, the corresponding liability cannot be added under Section 68. The case also provides authority on the application of Section 69C when suppliers are non-genuine but the purchases themselves are not doubted.
A Departmental Valuation Officer's (DVO) report, by itself, is not sufficient information to conclude understatement of consideration or make additions to income. The Revenue must discharge the burden of proving actual receipt of higher consideration, beyond merely relying on a DVO's opinion, especially in the absence of incriminating evidence.
Expenditure incurred to create a new asset or an advantage of enduring nature is not deductible under section 10(2)(v). This expenditure is considered capital in nature.
The Revenue must prove that the assessee received more consideration than declared when challenging a sale transaction. The declared sale consideration is accepted unless evidence proves otherwise.
The court cannot condone prolonged delays in filing appeals if the assessee has not demonstrated due diligence. Delay in filing appeals, particularly those related to penalties under sections 272A(1)(d) and 270A, cannot be routinely excused.
