“Section 113(1)”
The decision most relied on for Section 113(1) is CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. (49 Taxmann.com 249), cited in 294 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 113(1)
Legislation is ordinarily presumed not to have retrospective operation, especially for taxing statutes unless explicitly stated or when intended to remove hardship for the assessee. The decision clarifies the principles for determining whether an amendment to a taxing statute applies prospectively or retrospectively, distinguishing between clarificatory and substantive amendments.
An Income-tax Tribunal, operating anywhere in the country, must respect and follow the law laid down by any High Court, even if it is a non-jurisdictional High Court, as long as there is no contrary decision from another High Court on that specific legal point. The law declared by such a High Court is considered the final law of the land for the Tribunal.
Funds received by an entity acting as a nodal agency or agent of the government for implementing specific government schemes, or income generated from such funds (like lease premiums or interest), are not taxable in the hands of the agency if held on behalf of or remitted to the government.
The determination of whether share transactions constitute a business activity or an investment depends on the facts of the case. Factors like volume, frequency, and regularity indicate business activity, irrespective of how such transactions are presented in accounts.
Deductions under section 80IA are to be computed with reference to the profits of each eligible unit independently, without considering the profits or losses of other units. Each eligible unit is treated as a standalone entity for the purpose of calculating this deduction.
A penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable if the notice issued under section 274 does not specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The judgment addresses situations where the assessing officer's findings might be contradictory, particularly when relying on sales based on books that have already been rejected.
The nomenclature of a levy as 'interest', 'damages', or 'penalty' is not conclusive in determining its tax deductibility. The substance of the levy, rather than its name, dictates its allowability as a deduction.
