“Section 155(1)”
The decision most relied on for Section 155(1) is CIT v. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. (103 Taxmann.com 57), cited in 306 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 155(1)
The Supreme Court holds that the issue of payment of excessive price on purchase of sugarcane by assesses is no longer res integra. The court elaborately dealt with this issue.
For computing the deduction under Section 80M, only the net dividend income (gross dividend income after reducing expenses attributable to earning it, as per Section 57(iii) and the principle in Section 80AB) is eligible. The case also holds that tax authorities are not bound to perpetuate an error from a previous assessment year, as each year is a separate unit and consistency cannot override substantive justice.
The benefit of a Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is available only upon notification by the Government. A notification under section 90(1) is a necessary and mandatory condition for giving effect to a DTAA or any protocol that alters existing law.
Funds received by an entity acting as a nodal agency or agent of the government for implementing specific government schemes, or income generated from such funds (like lease premiums or interest), are not taxable in the hands of the agency if held on behalf of or remitted to the government.
The phrase "so far as may be" in a statutory provision indicates that the referred procedures, such as those for conducting searches, are to be generally followed to the extent possible, meaning they are not mandatory in every minute detail but applied practically.
Legal fictions and deeming provisions are created for definite purposes and must be limited strictly to that purpose, not extended beyond their legitimate field or the explicit mandate of the section. This principle requires strict interpretation of such provisions.
Penalty for concealment of income cannot be imposed merely due to a difference of opinion between the taxpayer and the Assessing Officer; there must be an intention to evade tax liability.
Reassessment proceedings are not justified if initiated based on material already on record, as this constitutes a mere change of opinion and not the discovery of fresh tangible material.