“Section 297(1)”
The decision most relied on for Section 297(1) is CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (198 ITR 297), cited in 814 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 297(1)
A court's pronouncement derives its scope and color from the specific questions involved in the case, thus, due regard must always be given to the questions framed before the court when interpreting its judgment.
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.
Employees' contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified under the respective Acts, are allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1).
The estimation of income for deducting tax at source under Section 192(1) of the Income-tax Act is valid when based on an honest and fair assessment by the assessee, a principle affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Registration under Section 12A is a mandatory prerequisite for claiming exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act. Without such registration, an institution cannot avail the benefits provided by Section 11(1)(a).
An assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue if the Assessing Officer conducted an adequate inquiry, preventing the initiation of revision proceedings under Section 263.
The principles applied in CIT v. Williamson Financial Services [2008] 297 ITR 17 (SC) are not applicable to the present cases as the former dealt with deductions under Section 80HHC, which is part of Chapter VI-A (special deductions), distinct from deductions under Sections 30 to 43D.
