“Section 18(3)”
The decision most relied on for Section 18(3) is Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18), cited in 666 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 18(3)
Admissions, whether made through entries in account books or statements, are important pieces of evidence but are not conclusive. An assessee has the right to demonstrate that an admission made by them is incorrect or can be retracted.
Education cess paid on total income and dividend distribution tax are allowable deductions for income tax purposes.
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that the term 'process' in relation to royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act is not defined and must be considered within the contemplation of the term, potentially impacting its application under DTAAs. This decision distinguished itself from the facts of other cases, including those involving broadcasting and advertising airtime.
The scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act are distinct, meaning they cannot be read together to determine an assessee's entitlement to a deduction for belatedly paid employee contributions.
The approving authority must apply its mind to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before granting sanction under section 151, and a mechanical rubber-stamping or mere affixation of a stamp without due consideration constitutes an invalid approval.
Disallowance of expenditure under section 14A can be added to book profit computed under section 115JB, as per the ruling in DCIT v. Viraj Profiles Limited.
Expenditure incurred on a business project that fails to materialize or is abandoned due to reasons not attributable to the assessee is treated as revenue expenditure and is deductible.
Penalty for concealment of income cannot be imposed merely due to a difference of opinion between the taxpayer and the Assessing Officer; there must be an intention to evade tax liability.
