“Section 79(1)”
The decision most relied on for Section 79(1) is CIT v. Krishna SSK (211 Taxmann 109), cited in 102 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 79(1)
The Supreme Court in CIT v. Krishna SSK establishes principles for de novo assessment of co-operative sugar factories concerning the tax implications of sugar sales to members, acknowledging that such sales are regulated under Section 79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. These principles guide the computation of total income from these regulated transactions.
Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer when the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed. The assessee is not obligated to instruct the Income-tax Officer on questions of law, nor can reassessment commence if the AO drew a wrong legal inference from disclosed facts.
Interest cannot be separately charged on outstanding receivables from an associated enterprise if these receivables are an integral part of the underlying international transaction for which the arm's length price has already been determined. Such outstanding receivables are not considered a distinct international transaction.
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.
This case is authority for the principle that deductions under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act may be granted in respect of certain categories of receipts. The court's decision in this case is relied upon when interpreting the scope of business activities for tax purposes.
The time limit for completing an assessment or reassessment under Section 34(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, is calculated from the date the assessment or reassessment is made, not the date it is served on the assessee.
An addition under Section 69 cannot be made solely based on a seller's statement admitting on-money, especially if the seller was not cross-examined and corroborating evidence is lacking. Such statements alone do not constitute sufficient grounds for reassessment.
Additional depreciation is allowable for assets purchased and put to use for less than 180 days in the preceding assessment year.