“Section 14(4)”
The decision most relied on for Section 14(4) is (ii) Govt. of India v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals (3 SCC 483), cited in 116 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 14(4)
The absence of a specific limitation period for recovery of duty or tax does not, by itself, render a rule arbitrary or unconstitutional under Article 14, provided authorities act with expedition and adhere to principles of natural justice.
Profits of a business are computed under the head 'Profits and Gains of Business or Profession' and then reduced by specific receipts mentioned in Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. This means that for the purposes of Section 80HHC, only profits computed under the business head are considered, with subsequent adjustments for specified receipts.
The second proviso to Section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 is unconstitutional for violating Article 14, as it allowed reassessment notices to be issued to "any person" without limit. The limitation period for issuing a reassessment notice is determined by the law prevailing on the date of issuance, including the retrospective effect of the 1948 amendment for assessing foreign income under Section 4(2).
A rate imposed upon a business owner or occupier, where the quantum is fixed after considering the owner's circumstances including business income, is not assessed on the basis of profits and is therefore allowable as a business expense.
The Settlement Commission must hear applications where delay in disposal before March 31, 2008, is not attributable to the applicant. Section 245HA(1)(iv) is arbitrary and unreasonable if an applicant faces hardship due to the Settlement Commission's inability to dispose of applications by a specified date.
Surplus arising on the sale of agricultural land is exempt from capital gains tax if it does not fall within the definition of 'capital asset' under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Where the Assessing Officer relies on the statement made by the assessee before the Settlement Commission, such reliance is permissible even if the Settlement Commission does not pass an order under section 245D(4).
When assessing the value of goods sold in separate transactions, separate prices charged for different buyers can be examined under Section 4(1)(a) proviso to determine if they are justified.
