Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

Whether the incentive subsidy received by the assessee is a capital receipt not includible in the total income

CIT cannot disarray the AAR. An attempt to belittle the role of this Authority in the statutory scheme of adjudication cannot be countenanced.

Rectification of an order stems from the fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the error and to disturb the finality.

The ex-gratia payment in excess of the limits prescribed under the payment of Bonus Act either under section 36(1)(ii) or section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, is allowable as business expenditure although the payment does not cover contractual or cus

Judgement of AAR can be taken to Supreme Court only after being challenged before a High Court.

Where the assessee is carrying on an illegal activity which is treated as a business, any loss arising in such business as a result of confiscation by the authorities is an allowable loss. However, where the assessee is carrying on a lawful business,

Where the assessee, who is carrying on a lawful business in gold, has committed infraction of law in smuggling gold into the country, loss caused to the assessee pursuant to the confiscation of contraband gold cannot be said to be a trade or commerci

A patent, manifest and self-evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected while exercising certiorari jurisdiction

Merely because tax on income was paid for some assessment years would not estop the non-resident assessee from contending that its income is not liable to tax in India.

Case Fact: Whether income earned by the partner from funds withdrawn from a firm, where the firm had received such funds from a Co. in which the said partner has substantial interest, as repayment of advances made earlier in the ordinary course of bu