“Section 2(4)(iii)”
The decision most relied on for Section 2(4)(iii) is Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT (263 ITR 101), cited in 266 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 2(4)(iii)
A statement recorded under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act has no evidentiary value because Section 133A does not empower an Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath.
Income earned from deposits or investments directly and inextricably linked to the acquisition of assets or the setting up of a business project during its construction period is incidental to the asset acquisition, reducing the project cost, or constitutes business receipts eligible for relevant deductions, rather than 'income from other sources'.
There can be no estoppel against the statute, meaning tax cannot be levied or collected without express authority of law. An appellate authority may adjudicate additional claims or legal contentions to ensure the correct tax liability is determined.
Action under section 153C cannot be undertaken if the seized document does not belong to the assessee and was seized from the residential premises of a third party who later retracted their statement.
If the Revenue accepts the Tribunal's decision for earlier years without challenge, it cannot assail the same decision in subsequent years, provided the facts are similar.
Contracts involving development, operation, maintenance, financial involvement, and defect correction are eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4), even when allotted by government bodies. Such contracts are not considered simple works contracts for the purpose of denying this deduction.
Expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning income is deductible under Section 57(iii) even if no income is actually earned. The earning of income is not a pre-condition for allowing the deduction.
Surplus arising on the sale of agricultural land is exempt from capital gains tax if it does not fall within the definition of 'capital asset' under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
