“Section 67(1)”
The decision most relied on for Section 67(1) is Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad (8 SCC 266), cited in 163 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 67(1)
If a statute or law prescribes that a thing must be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner alone and in no other way. This principle mandates strict adherence to statutory procedures.
Where purchases are accepted as genuine and a deduction allowed, the corresponding liability cannot be added under Section 68. The case also provides authority on the application of Section 69C when suppliers are non-genuine but the purchases themselves are not doubted.
Procedural law serves as an aid to justice, not an obstruction, and should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; it is subservient to substantive justice.
Payment for human intervention to install or put equipment in place, distinct from human intervention involved in the transportation of calls between networks, does not constitute Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act.
To disallow long-term capital gains, the Assessing Officer must rely on cogent proof, not mere suspicion or presumption, regarding share price manipulation or the nature of the companies involved.
Reimbursement of expenses does not constitute income and is therefore not taxable as a revenue receipt. Such receipts are treated as a reduction of cost rather than income.
An assessee's claim for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) cannot be rejected merely because Form 67 was filed after the due date under section 139(1), provided it is filed before the completion of assessment proceedings.
The requirement to file Form 67 by the due date for claiming foreign tax credit is directory, not mandatory, if filed before the completion of assessment proceedings.