“Section 178(1)”
The decision most relied on for Section 178(1) is Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (143 Taxmann.com 178), cited in 1,392 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 178(1)
Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).
Once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31(1) of the IBC, claims not included in the plan are extinguished and cannot be pursued. This applies to statutory dues owed to the government and other authorities.
All claims, including statutory dues, that predate the approval of a resolution plan under the IBC stand extinguished by operation of law. No proceedings can be initiated or continued for such claims if they are not part of the approved plan.
Interest under sections 234B and 234C is not attracted in cases where income is assessed under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions under section 115JB.
A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income cannot be levied when the assessment was made on a protective basis, especially if the income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was uncertain who had concealed the income.
Interest under sections 234B and 234C is not leviable on tax determined under the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions, especially when prevailing judicial pronouncements supported this view at the relevant time. However, subsequent Supreme Court decisions have clarified that interest is leviable even under MAT provisions.
Notional figures or hypothetical figures cannot be used for the calculation of profit, gain, or full value of consideration. The profit or gain to the transferor must be a distinctly and clearly identifiable component of the transaction.