“Section 105(3)”
The decision most relied on for Section 105(3) is 295 ITR 105 (Del) CIT v. Dharam Pal Prem (303 ITR 95), cited in 121 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 105(3)
Statements recorded under Section 131 of the Act do not hold evidentiary value and cannot be relied upon to draw adverse inferences against the assessee, especially without corroborative evidence or proper enquiry.
The character of land as agricultural land or a capital asset is a question of fact determined by the cumulative effect of all circumstances. Classification in revenue records alone is not conclusive evidence of agricultural use; actual agricultural operations must be proven.
Reopening an assessment is not permissible without fresh tangible material, merely on a change of opinion or a fresh application of mind to the same facts.
The assessee must prove the identity of the creditor, the creditor's capacity to advance money, and the genuineness of the transaction to rebut additions under Section 68. Mere proof of identity or payment by cheque is insufficient.
Mere suspicion or information from an investigation wing is not sufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings if the assessee has disclosed all material facts during the original assessment.
An assessee can challenge reassessment proceedings as being without jurisdiction in collateral proceedings for rectification under section 154, even if they have not appealed the reassessment order.
An order passed by the Assessing Officer is considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue if it allows a deduction or claim without proper application of mind or necessary inquiries.
