Section 199 of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 199 is CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (236 ITR 315), cited in 370 of the 535 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 199

CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd.
236 ITR 315 · 1999 · Supreme Court
370
citing judgments

Interest earned during the pre-commencement period of a project, on advances made to contractors or on unutilized borrowed funds, if inextricably linked to the setting up of the plant, constitutes a capital receipt. Such interest is not taxable as income but can be reduced from the capital work-in-progress.

CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas
41 ITR 367 · 1961 · Supreme Court
146
citing judgments

Income is diverted by an overriding charge, and thus not taxable, when it never truly accrues to the assessee due to a prior obligation. Conversely, income that first accrues to the assessee and is then applied to discharge an obligation out of that income is taxable.

CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.
39 ITR 706 · 1960 · High Court
103
citing judgments

The law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Profits charged to tax must be in accordance with law and not amount to taxing notional income.

CIT v. Goslino Mario
241 ITR 314 · 2000 · High Court
101
citing judgments

Tax assessments must be made according to the law in existence during the relevant assessment year. A new statutory explanation or amendment, even if effective retrospectively, does not apply to pending assessments of prior years if it takes away the vested rights of the assessees.

HT Media Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
85 Taxmann.com 113 · 2017 · High Court
69
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must record objective satisfaction, based on objective analysis and cogent reasons, before invoking Section 14A and applying Rule 8D for disallowing expenditure related to exempt income. Furthermore, disallowance under Section 14A applies only to investments that have actually yielded exempt income during the relevant assessment year.

J.K. (Bom.) Limited v. CBDT and Another
118 ITR 312 · 1979 · High Court
50
citing judgments

The case elucidates the meaning of 'management services', detailing its components and considering whether such services qualify as 'technical services' for income tax purposes, particularly in relation to fees for technical services.

CIT v. Bhooratnam & Co.
357 ITR 396 · 2013 · High Court
48
citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to credit for TDS even if the certificate is issued in the name of a joint venture or related party, provided the income to which the TDS relates is offered by the assessee. This principle emphasizes looking at the substance of the transaction over strict adherence to the name on the TDS certificate.

CIT v. Jagatjit Industries Ltd.
339 ITR 382 · 2011 · High Court
45
citing judgments

An assessee's consistently followed accounting method, if previously accepted by the Department, cannot be rejected by the tax authorities unless they establish that it distorts the true profits. The doctrine of consistency applies.

PCIT v. New Delhi Television Ltd.
398 ITR 57 · 2017 · High Court
42
citing judgments

Expenditure on Employees Stock Options Plan (ESOP) compensation is an ascertained liability and is allowable as revenue expenditure.

Yashpal Sahni v. ACIT
293 ITR 539 · 2007 · High Court
38
citing judgments

Once tax has been deducted at source (TDS), the bar of section 205 applies, preventing the deductee from being asked to pay the tax again, even if the deductor fails to deposit the tax or issue TDS certificates.

Judgments on Section 199

ACIT, TDS, Noida vs. M/S St Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., Greater Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5597/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. St Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Tds, Noida Plot No. 11, Knoledge Park-111, Greater Noida Gir/Pan : Aaacs3406M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, Ca Date Of Hearing 19.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19/07/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Noida For Assessment Year 2007-08 Raising Following Grounds: “That Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Directing To Delete The Order U/S 201(1)/201(1A) Of The I.T. Act Passed By The Assessing Officer Ignoring The Fact That Assessee Must Follow The Mercantile System Of Accounting For These Payments & Erred In Further Allowing The Assessee To Follow The Cash System Of Accounting For These Payments Solely On The Grund Of Sap Environment Being Followed By The Assessee.” 2. The Facts In Brief Are That During Tax Deducted At Source (Tds) Verification By The Tds Assessing Officer, It Was Observed That Tax Was Not Deducted On Certain Expenses Debited In Profit & Loss. The Assessing Officer Called For The Tax Audit Report In Form No. 3 Cd & Observed That The Auditor Had Also Pointed

Section 145(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40a

Sh. Surendra Kumar Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1792/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Surendra Kumar Wadhwa, C/O- Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -20(2), Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, 14, School New Delhi Lane, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aabpw0250F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 18.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Order Dated 27/01/2014 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-V, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2000-10, Raising Following Grounds: 1. That, The Assessment Order & The Appellate Order Are Based On Conjucture & Surmises & Against The Facts Of The Case & The Law Laid Down In This Respect. 2. That, The Assessing Officer & The Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Errored In Taxing The Commission Payable Of Rs. 4,08,080 In This Year, While This Amount Belongs To The Subsequent Year When The Bills Were Raised & The Amount Was Received. The Appellant Has Never Offered To Tax In This Year Rs. 4,08,080. The Submission Of The Assessing Officer In This Respect Is His Words & Not The Words Of The Appellant. The Affidavit Can Be Submitted For The Confirmation Of This Submission. 3. That, The Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Errored In Considering The Loan Processing Fees As A Capital Expenditure Instead Of Revenue Expenditure. The Loan Processing Fees Payable To Bank Is A Bank Charges For Rendering Services For Granting The Loan For Car For Business Purpose. This Amount Cannot Be Considered As Capital Expenditure. This Is Revenue Expenditure. 4. That, The Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Errored In Saying That The Amount Of Rs. 3,90,579 May Be Reduced From The Income For The A.Y. 2010- 11 If Such Amount Has Indeed Been Taxed Twice.

Section 143(2)