“Section 53(2)”
The decision most relied on for Section 53(2) is Skycell Communications Ltd. v. DCIT (251 ITR 53), cited in 253 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 53(2)
Technical services involve human intervention and expertise, not just routine or machine-based operations. Routine customer support and standard facility provision through technology do not constitute technical services under the Act.
The Bombay High Court holds that employees' contributions to provident fund and ESIC, though paid beyond the due dates specified in the respective welfare legislations, are allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if they are paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act.
Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on enhanced compensation does not form part of the compensation itself but is taxable as 'income from other sources', analogous to interest under Section 34 of the Act.
For reassessment under Section 147, merely finding deposits in a savings bank account is not sufficient 'reason to believe' for the Assessing Officer. The officer must specifically record reasons demonstrating that income has escaped assessment to validly issue a notice under Section 148.
Failure to fully and truly disclose material facts, for the purpose of reassessment beyond four years, extends beyond the income tax return to omissions during assessment proceedings. Mere disclosure of a transaction does not constitute true and full disclosure if underlying material facts are withheld.
Under Indian income-tax law, the Income-tax Officer must compute income and profits according to the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee, such as the cash or mercantile system. This distinguishes Indian law from English legislation where the tax authority is not bound by the assessee's chosen method.
A receipt for loss of capital is a capital receipt, while a receipt as profit from a trading transaction constitutes taxable income. This case provides a foundational test for distinguishing between capital and revenue receipts.
The Delhi High Court held that the mere receipt of fees or charges by an entity engaged in the advancement of general public utility does not automatically classify its activities as trade, commerce, or business under the proviso to section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.