“Section 192(3)”
The decision most relied on for Section 192(3) is CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. (88 ITR 192), cited in 2,664 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 192(3)
When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.
An employer is not in default under section 201 if they have made a bona fide estimate of employee income and deducted tax at source based on that estimate.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer has taken one of two possible views on a debatable issue during assessment proceedings.
Once the identity of the shareholders is established, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee company under Section 68 for share capital or share application money, as it cannot be treated as undisclosed income.
An employer is not statutorily obligated to collect evidence from employees regarding the actual utilization of amounts paid towards leave travel concession or conveyance allowance, unless specific requirements are mandated by law or a CBDT circular.
Goodwill arising on amalgamation is an intangible asset qualifying for depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act.
Expenses incurred and reimbursed for seconded employees under a secondment agreement are not liable to tax deduction at source and do not constitute 'fees for technical services'. The secondment agreement itself forms an independent arrangement for securing services.
Expenses incurred after a business has been set up but before its actual commencement are allowable as business deductions under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court clarified that even expenses related to activities at a preparatory stage are admissible.