“Section 210(1)”
The decision most relied on for Section 210(1) is Kerala Finance Corporation v. CIT (210 ITR 129), cited in 63 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 210(1)
CBDT circulars, instructions, or directions issued under Section 119 cannot override or detract from the provisions of the Income-tax Act, as a delegated authority lacks the power to amend law enacted by Parliament.
Section 44AB (tax audit) does not apply where the assessee is not engaged in a business or profession and consequently has no income under the head 'profits and gains from business or profession'.
AMP expenditure is not an international transaction. The Bright Line Test is not a valid basis for determining the existence of an international transaction or computing the arm's length price.
Where books of account are rejected or not produced, the Assessing Officer may compute profits by applying a flat rate to the turnover or gross receipts. A best judgment assessment must have a nexus to the material on record and cannot be arbitrary or capricious.
The provision of section 36(1)(vii) prior to April 1, 1989, and post amendment does not require an assessee to prove that a debt has become irrecoverable; mere write-off in accounts is sufficient.
The ITAT decision in Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. v. DCIT is authority for the proposition that no interference is called for in an impugned order when no contrary decision has been placed on record.
Where an assessee's account books are found to be incorrect or incomplete due to unverifiable purchases and sales, lack of vouchers, and absence of a stock register, the Assessing Officer can estimate the profits.
A notice issued under Section 143(2) is a jurisdictional notice, and the absence of such a notice renders the assessment order invalid. Failure to issue a valid notice under Section 143(2) cannot be cured by subsequent actions or findings.
