“Section 242(2)”
The decision most relied on for Section 242(2) is Rohitasava Chand v. CIT (306 ITR 242), cited in 59 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 242(2)
Receipt of a non-compete fee, even if it does not alter the assessee's business structure, impairs the carrying on of their activity, constituting a loss of a source of income.
Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be initiated unless the assessment proceedings based on a previously filed return have been terminated. Notice for reassessment cannot be issued while original assessment proceedings are pending.
A Commissioner cannot invoke revisionary powers under Section 263 merely because further enquiry is needed; the Commissioner must demonstrate how the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, and cannot form an opinion without proper analysis.
The Commissioner can revise an assessment order under section 263 even if an appeal against the order is pending before the CIT(A), as the Assessing Officer's order is considered subsisting and effective.
An assessment cannot be based on mere suspicion or guess work; the Assessing Officer must bring on record material evidence to prove that apparent is not real.
Expenditure incurred on interior decoration, false ceiling, and wooden structures on leased premises constitutes capital expenditure, not revenue expenditure.
Employee contributions to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) are allowable as deductions if paid before the due date for filing the income tax return.
Compensation paid to hutment dwellers for vacating land is an allowable expenditure in computing capital gains, as it relates to the transfer of the asset. Such payments are considered a cost of acquisition or improvement under Section 48 read with Section 55 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.