“Section 155(3)”
The decision most relied on for Section 155(3) is CIT v. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. (103 Taxmann.com 57), cited in 306 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 155(3)
The Supreme Court holds that the issue of payment of excessive price on purchase of sugarcane by assesses is no longer res integra. The court elaborately dealt with this issue.
Education cess paid on total income and dividend distribution tax are allowable deductions for income tax purposes.
The Supreme Court restores the matter for ascertaining whether the difference between the fair market price and concessional price of sugar supplied by a cooperative sugar factory to its members should be added to its total income, considering relevant factors like state cooperative society directions.
For computing the deduction under Section 80M, only the net dividend income (gross dividend income after reducing expenses attributable to earning it, as per Section 57(iii) and the principle in Section 80AB) is eligible. The case also holds that tax authorities are not bound to perpetuate an error from a previous assessment year, as each year is a separate unit and consistency cannot override substantive justice.
The benefit of a Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is available only upon notification by the Government. A notification under section 90(1) is a necessary and mandatory condition for giving effect to a DTAA or any protocol that alters existing law.
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.
When an assessee presents a registered valuer's report for an asset, the Assessing Officer, if forming an opinion that the value claimed is less than the fair market value, must refer the valuation to the Valuation Officer under Section 55A(a). The AO cannot unilaterally reject the registered valuer's report or resort to Section 55A(b) in such a scenario.
Legal fictions and deeming provisions are created for definite purposes and must be limited strictly to that purpose, not extended beyond their legitimate field or the explicit mandate of the section. This principle requires strict interpretation of such provisions.