“Section 105(2)”
The decision most relied on for Section 105(2) is CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigha (105 ITR 133), cited in 93 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 105(2)
The character of land as agricultural land or a capital asset is a question of fact determined by the cumulative effect of all circumstances. Classification in revenue records alone is not conclusive evidence of agricultural use; actual agricultural operations must be proven.
Amendments to Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are curative and have retrospective effect, intended to clarify and remove anomalies. Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit must be set off against tax payable before computing advance tax liability to avoid absurd results.
A prior decision of the Bombay High Court, confirmed by the Supreme Court in P.K. Badiani v. CIT (105 ITR 642), is applicable to the facts of a subsequent case, even if it involves different assessment procedures. This establishes the precedent value of a Supreme Court judgment.
An assessee can challenge reassessment proceedings as being without jurisdiction in collateral proceedings for rectification under section 154, even if they have not appealed the reassessment order.
An order passed by the Assessing Officer is considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue if it allows a deduction or claim without proper application of mind or necessary inquiries.
