“Section 3(21)”
The decision most relied on for Section 3(21) is Biocon Ltd. v. DCIT (35 Taxmann.com 335), cited in 322 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 3(21)
The discount arising from the grant of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it is an ascertained liability, not a contingent one, and constitutes a revenue expense rather than a capital expense.
Where a reasonable cause for delay in filing an appeal exists, the period of delay may not be a relevant factor for condonation. The court has condoned even substantial delays, such as nearly 21 years, based on the presence of a reasonable cause.
Stringent bail provisions under special legislations like the TADA Act are justified on the presumption that the trial will proceed without undue delay; gross delays for undertrials can invoke the right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The amended provisions of Section 153C require that documents found during a search must 'pertain to' or 'relate to' the assessee. The High Court held that this requirement does not apply to searches conducted prior to the amendment.
The onus is on the Income Tax Department to prove that a particular receipt or amount is taxable and falls under the provisions of the Income-tax Act.
The power to cancel registration granted to a trust is not an implied power under the General Clauses Act and requires express legislative provision. An express power to cancel registration was introduced later via amendment.
A CBDT notification issued under section 90(3) of the Income-tax Act is clarificatory in nature and effective from April 1, 2004, the date section 90(3) was introduced.
The Assessing Officer (AO) of the searched person must record their satisfaction for initiating proceedings against another person under Section 153C, even if the AO is the same individual.