“Section 188(1)”
The decision most relied on for Section 188(1) is CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. (188 ITR 44), cited in 204 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 188(1)
The Assessing Officer has a duty to examine whether an assessee's books of account truly disclose the correct income and is not bound to accept the accounting system regularly employed by the assessee or methods followed in earlier years. Each assessment year is a distinct and self-contained unit for tax purposes.
The transformation of bulk powder into regulated, consumable capsules constitutes manufacturing under the definition provided in various statutes, qualifying for associated tax benefits and deductions.
An assessment order cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue if the Assessing Officer conducted extensive inquiries and was satisfied with the assessee's claim during assessment proceedings.
Amounts exempt under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act do not constitute 'income' for the purposes of Section 195, meaning no tax is deductible at source on such amounts.
Expenditure incurred in connection with the extension of an undertaking or setting up a new unit by an Indian company is eligible for deduction under section 35D of the Income-tax Act.
The Supreme Court, in the context of distinguishing cess from tax, found that the specific issue in India Cements Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (188 ITR 690) was different from whether cess was included in tax provisions like Section 43B(a).
