“Section 239(1)”
The decision most relied on for Section 239(1) is Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT (239 ITR 587), cited in 243 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 239(1)
The Supreme Court lays down principles for deducting tax at source (TDS) under Section 195 on payments to non-residents, including aspects of income deemed taxable in India and the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) under Section 90.
For income tax purposes, the 'owner' of a property is the person who is entitled to receive income in their own right, bears the risks incidental to ownership, and utilizes the asset, even if the sale deed is not formally registered. This beneficial ownership is sufficient for claiming depreciation or capital gains exemption under relevant sections.
Under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer must tax any taxable income in the hands of the correct assessee to whom it truly belongs, having no option to assess it in any other person's hands.
The Supreme Court holds that for a service to qualify as 'fees for technical services' under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12 of a DTAA, direct human involvement or intervention in rendering the service is essential. This principle applies to telecommunication services like interconnect charges and roaming charges, and also to services related to software use.
For cash credits under Section 68, the assessee must prove the identity of the creditor, their creditworthiness or capacity to advance the amount, and the genuineness of the transaction; once these conditions are met, the assessee is not obligated to prove the 'source of source' in the creditor's bank account.
Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated based on a mere change of opinion or having second thoughts on the same material that was available during the original assessment. The Assessing Officer's omission to draw a correct legal presumption or inference from disclosed facts, without any failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, does not warrant reopening.
The Tribunal has the discretion to admit additional evidence, particularly when the lower appellate authority has erred in rejecting it, to ensure proper adjudication of the matter. When additional evidence is filed in support of a claim, the matter may be remanded for fresh disposal.
Disallowance of expenditure on an estimated basis is not sustainable if the assessee has filed complete details and the assessing officer has not pointed out specific inflation or unvouched expenditure.
