“Section 133(4)”
The decision most relied on for Section 133(4) is CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. (349 ITR 98), cited in 818 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 133(4)
When computing deduction under Section 10A, if communication or telecommunication expenses are excluded from export turnover, they must also be excluded from total turnover to maintain consistency and apply the ordinary meaning of 'turnover' in context.
The onus to prove that an apparent transaction or explanation is not real lies with the person who claims it to be so. If an assessee provides a plausible explanation for a transaction, the revenue must establish that the apparent transaction is not genuine.
The Assessing Officer cannot add share capital or share premium amounts if the assessee provides the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber and establishes the genuineness of the transaction. The court may admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, such as the PAN identity of the creditor.
Income tax additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of uncorroborated statements or allegations. The Revenue must bring on record sufficient material and allow the assessee to produce evidence to prove such additions.
For interest on borrowed capital to be deductible under Section 36(1)(iii), there must be a nexus between the use of the borrowed funds and the purpose of the business. This decision has been overruled by the Supreme Court in Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT (2008).
An assessment can be reopened if there is tangible material indicating escapement of income, demonstrating a live link between the material and the reasons recorded for reopening. The Assessing Officer must apply their mind to the material facts, and the sanction under section 151 should not be based on borrowed satisfaction.
If an assessee provides the identity, address, PAN, and banking details of shareholders for share capital or application money received through banking channels, the Assessing Officer must conduct a thorough investigation beyond merely issuing unserved summons before making an addition under Section 68.
An addition under Section 68 for cash credits or share application money is not sustainable if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct proper investigation into the documentary evidence provided by the assessee regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.
