“Section 2(27)”
The decision most relied on for Section 2(27) is E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (26 ITR 27), cited in 256 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 2(27)
Income is taxable only when it represents real income, not notional income. It accrues only when there is a vested right to receive it, typically upon the occurrence of a transfer or event, rather than merely on a time basis.
Acquisitions under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 are distinct from the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, making Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act inapplicable to BDA Act acquisitions. A land acquisition does not lapse under the BDA Act even if the development scheme under Section 27 lapses, provided the land has already vested in the State Government under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The Supreme Court established the foundational test for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure, holding that the aim and object of the expenditure and whether it brings into existence an asset or an advantage of an enduring nature determines its character, irrespective of the payment method. An advantage lasting five years or more can be considered enduring.
Income from letting out immovable property, even with ancillary services, is taxable as 'Income from House Property' if the dominant intention is to exploit the property itself, not to run a complex business providing integrated services. The classification depends on the assessee's primary object in exploiting the property.
Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 specifies the modes for serving notices, including by post or summons under the Code of Civil Procedure. A valid service of notice is essential for assessment or reassessment proceedings, and its absence renders such proceedings bad in law.
The validity of an approval for reassessment proceedings under section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hinges on whether it bears the signature, including a digital signature, of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.
An assessee can raise an objection regarding the validity of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction for reopening a concluded assessment even if the issue was not raised before the CIT(Appeals), by invoking Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. This is permissible if the issue is ancillary to the main issue and does not require additional evidence.
Revisionary power under Section 263 cannot be exercised arbitrarily; it has limits and does not apply to every inadequacy in the Assessing Officer's inquiry or verification.
