“Section 130(1)”
The decision most relied on for Section 130(1) is Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT (265 ITR 25), cited in 151 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 130(1)
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not automatically imposed upon an assessee's failure to contest a quantum addition or if two views are possible; the Assessing Officer must prove the charge of concealment or inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, an Assessing Officer can disallow a claim during assessment if it is patently false on examination of facts.
For computing presumptive income under Section 44BB, gross receipts do not include service tax reimbursements received from a client (like ONGC) if such amounts are not payments for services or plant/machinery directly used in the prospecting, extraction, or production of mineral oils.
Debt forgiveness constituting a monetary benefit does not attract Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. Such a benefit is not income arising from business or profession.
Revisionary power under Section 263 cannot be exercised arbitrarily; it has limits and does not apply to every inadequacy in the Assessing Officer's inquiry or verification.
An excess of income over expenditure does not, in itself, mean that an educational institution exists for profit, rather than solely for educational purposes. The primary purpose test is key.
Section 14A disallowance does not apply to insurance businesses. Income of insurance businesses is computed as per Section 44 read with specific provisions of the Income Tax Act.