“Section 105(1)”
The decision most relied on for Section 105(1) is 295 ITR 105 (Del) CIT v. Dharam Pal Prem (303 ITR 95), cited in 121 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 105(1)
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.
Employee's contribution to PF and ESI, if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), is allowable as a deduction even if paid after the due date stipulated by the respective Acts. Such deposits are not disallowable under section 43B or section 36(1)(va).
Making a wrong claim for deduction can amount to concealment of income for the purpose of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).
A cessation or remission of liability only arises when a creditor's claim ceases to exist in the eyes of the law, not merely because an addition was made by the Assessing Officer while the matter was still pending before an appellate forum.
A prior decision of the Bombay High Court, confirmed by the Supreme Court in P.K. Badiani v. CIT (105 ITR 642), is applicable to the facts of a subsequent case, even if it involves different assessment procedures. This establishes the precedent value of a Supreme Court judgment.
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.
