“Section 222(2)”
The decision most relied on for Section 222(2) is Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT (222 ITR 691), cited in 114 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 222(2)
A penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited cannot be levied if a penalty under Section 271A has already been imposed for non-maintenance of books of account.
Legitimate tax planning, executed within the framework of law, is permissible and distinct from tax avoidance through colourable devices or sham transactions. The concept of 'colourable device' or 'sham' cannot be applied to defeat a legal situation unless the acts are of a doubtful or questionable bona fide character.
Expenditure incurred by an assessee to discharge a mortgage created by a previous owner is an allowable deduction in computing capital gains, as it represents the cost of acquisition or perfecting an imperfect title. The assessee's payment to clear the encumbrance is not deductible for capital gains computation.
The Supreme Court has held that the Tax Recovery Officer has the power to issue a prohibitory order under Section 222 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even before the demand becomes final. This power is available when there is a certificate of arrears.
Foreign commission paid to non-residents is not taxable in India, thus no TDS liability arises on such payments.
Expenses incurred to overcome difficulties in the sale of a property are deductible as they are intimately connected to the transfer of the asset and are paid in the interest of the assessee.
An assessee cannot challenge the jurisdiction of an assessing officer after the expiry of one month from the date of service of notice, unless the objection is raised within 30 days of the notice under section 124(3)(a).
The nature and character of a receipt, whether it is of a capital or revenue nature, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, particularly the purpose for which the payment was made.