“Section 65(2)”
The decision most relied on for Section 65(2) is CIT v. Walchand & Co. (65 ITR 381), cited in 314 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 65(2)
The necessity and reasonableness of business expenditure, including the utilization of borrowed funds, must be judged from the perspective of a businessman based on commercial expediency, and cannot be dictated by revenue authorities. The onus is on the assessee to demonstrate the business purpose and commercial expediency.
Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions are liable to be treated as bogus and added back under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, especially when evidence suggests the involvement of entry operators providing accommodation entries.
Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) does not apply to long-term investments, including those in subsidiary/group concerns or strategic investments, and such investments should be excluded from the calculation.
When a business is purchased as a going concern, the consideration paid in excess of the value of its tangible assets is classified as goodwill, which is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation without needing a separate valuation.
An assessment made on an assessee under a different status than what was specified in the notice is illegal and without jurisdiction. The assessee must be put on notice and invited for objections if the Assessing Officer proposes to assess them under a different status.
An appeal is not maintainable if the Assessing Officer accepts the assessee's claim after due verification of documents, especially when the decision is based on an agreement or the assessee has not provided an explanation for the nature and source of credits.
An assessment order cannot be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests, thus not subject to revision under section 263, if the Assessing Officer has considered all facts and completed the assessment after due application of mind.