“Section 243(3)”
The decision most relied on for Section 243(3) is CIT v. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (243 ITR 2), cited in 125 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 243(3)
Income earned from deposits or investments directly and inextricably linked to the acquisition of assets or the setting up of a business project during its construction period is incidental to the asset acquisition, reducing the project cost, or constitutes business receipts eligible for relevant deductions, rather than 'income from other sources'.
Income arising from mutual activities carried out by clubs or associations solely among their members is not assessable for income tax, as it does not constitute income from a trade or business due to the principle of mutuality.
The Department has a moral and legal obligation to refund excess tax collected from taxpayers, along with interest. An assessee is entitled to interest on the amount of taxes refunded, including interest on interest, as per Section 244A of the Income-tax Act.
The mere rejection of an assessee's books of account under Section 145(3) does not automatically warrant an addition to the returned income. The Assessing Officer must consider the books alongside historical data and other collected material after confronting the taxpayer.
An assessee is not entitled to interest on interest under section 244A of the Income-tax Act, particularly regarding interest granted on a refund.
Depreciation that is actually allowed as a deduction is considered, not notionally allowed depreciation. The wording of Sections 32 and 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is specific and unambiguous.
Under Section 244A, the "amount due" for a refund includes both the principal tax and the interest accrued thereon up to the date the refund is granted. If the revenue fails to pay the full amount of refund, it is liable to pay further interest on the outstanding balance of this total refund, which does not constitute "interest on interest".
The absence of JCIT's approval under Section 274(2) is a curable procedural irregularity that does not render the Assessing Officer's order void ab initio, but rather requires the matter to be decided afresh after obtaining the necessary approval.
