“Section 50(3)”
The decision most relied on for Section 50(3) is Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (50 ITR 1), cited in 581 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 50(3)
The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.
A mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 must be an obvious and patent error, not one that requires a long and elaborate process of reasoning or where two opinions are conceivable. Rectification under Section 154 is not permissible for re-examining issues already considered or requiring detailed re-computation.
The deeming fiction in Section 50, which treats capital gains from depreciable assets as short-term, applies only for the purpose of computing capital gains under that section. For other provisions, such as set-off of losses under Section 74 or deductions under Section 54E/54EC, the asset's original character (long-term or short-term) is to be considered.
Interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation from compulsory acquisition of land is taxable under the head 'Income from other sources' in the year of receipt, as per the amended provisions, with a 50% deduction available under section 57(iv).
The Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 263, as clarified by Explanation (c) of Section 263(1) (retrospectively inserted by the Finance Act, 1989), extend to and are deemed always to have extended to matters that were not considered and decided in an appeal. This means the CIT can revise an order even if it was appealed, provided the specific issue under revision was not part of the appeal proceedings.
The balance 50% of additional depreciation, for new machinery or plant put to use for less than 180 days in the year of acquisition, is allowable in the immediately succeeding assessment year. The second proviso to Section 32(1)(iia) restricts only the allowance for the first year, not the total benefit.
When the High Court admits a substantial question of law concerning an assessee's claim or alleged default, it indicates the assessee's bona fides, thereby preventing the imposition of penalties under sections 271(1)(c) or 271C. The mere disallowance of a claim or an addition by revenue authorities does not automatically lead to a penalty if the issue is debatable and pending appeal.
A word, clause, or sentence from a court judgment, when taken out of context, does not represent a complete exposition of the law on a question that the judgment did not explicitly address.
