“Section 234(1)”
The decision most relied on for Section 234(1) is Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT (101 ITR 234), cited in 323 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 234(1)
This case defines 'education' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act as systematic instruction, schooling, or training given to the young for preparation for the work of life. It clarifies that 'education' in this context has a narrow meaning, not extending to every acquisition of further knowledge.
This Supreme Court decision is cited as authority in search and seizure assessment proceedings.
Reopening an assessment is not permissible without fresh tangible material, merely on a change of opinion or a fresh application of mind to the same facts.
Expenditure incurred for making advertisement films is revenue expenditure if it relates to an ongoing business. However, if the expenditure is for a brand to be used in a business yet to commence, it is capital expenditure.
A finding by the Revenue that an assessee is in default is a foundational requirement for initiating proceedings under Section 201 of the Income-Tax Act. The burden of proving that the payee has paid taxes shifts to the deductor following amendments to Section 201 effective from July 1, 2012.
Judicial scrutiny can examine whether there was material on the basis of which a belief could be formed about the escapement of income.
Interest under section 234 cannot be levied if the employer fails to deduct tax at source, as the employee should not be faulted for the employer's default.
The levy of interest under Section 234-A of the Income Tax Act is statutory, mandatory, and automatic, meaning it cannot be a question of law that can be raised in appeal. The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 260A is limited to questions of law, and thus, observations on the levy of interest are generally outside its scope.