“Section 2(168)”
The decision most relied on for Section 2(168) is Krishna Kumar Singhania v. DCIT (168 ITD 271), cited in 42 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 2(168)
The presumption under section 132(4A) applies only to materials seized from the assessee's premises, not materials seized or statements recorded from third parties. Additions under section 153A cannot be made solely based on documents found from third-party premises if no satisfactory explanation is provided for the seized loose sheets.
Debt forgiveness constituting a monetary benefit does not attract Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. Such a benefit is not income arising from business or profession.
An appellate tribunal ought to remand a matter rather than set aside assessments entirely when jurisdiction is in question.
The Revenue Authorities cannot make a reference for assessment years if no information could have been provided for those years, and any extension of limitation based on such an invalid reference is impermissible.
