Section 127 of the Income Tax Act
The decision most relied on for Section 127 is CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (330 ITR 175), cited in 207 of the 576 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.
Leading authorities on Section 127
Disallowances made under various sections, such as for PF/ESIC contributions, result in an increase in business profits, and these enhanced profits are eligible for deduction under Sections 10A and 10AA. Similarly, gains from foreign exchange fluctuations directly linked to export sales are also eligible for deduction under Section 10A.
The Delhi High Court affirms that additions made by the Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings under Section 153A are valid when such additions are based on incriminating material found during a search. The decision did not address the validity of additions in the absence of incriminating material.
For a limited company, expenses cannot be disallowed merely on the grounds of presumed personal use of assets by directors or by treating the expenditure as a non-business purpose. Percentage disallowances of expenses in such cases are not sustainable.
The territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is determined solely by the situs (location) of the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment.
Circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act are legally binding on the revenue authorities in their administration and implementation. This binding character applies even if the circulars depart from the correct interpretation of the law and cannot be ignored to the prejudice of the assessee.
Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made when the assessee has deducted tax at a lesser rate, as opposed to no deduction. The second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is applicable retrospectively, mitigating disallowance where tax is deposited by the recipient.
Passing a final assessment order under Section 143(3) directly, without first issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) for an eligible assessee, constitutes a fundamental jurisdictional defect. This defect cannot be cured by a subsequent corrigendum, especially if issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
When an assessee has sufficient interest-free own funds available to make interest-free advances or investments, it is presumed that such advances or investments are made from these interest-free funds, thereby preventing the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii).
An assessee can raise new grounds, including objections to the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to initiate re-assessment proceedings or the validity of an assessment order (e.g., under Section 263), for the first time in the second round of appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) or Tribunal, even if not raised in earlier proceedings.
The evidentiary value of a statement made under section 132(4) during a search, particularly if later retracted, is not conclusive and requires corroboration by other material to sustain additions to income.
Judgments on Section 127
Showing 1–20 of 576 · Page 1 of 29