Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

SECTION 40A(3) Business expenditure—Disallowance under s. 40A(3)—Cash payment exceeding Rs. 2,500—Assessee dealing in silver ornaments, if he had to do his business could not avoid paying by cash—Exceptional or unavoidable circumstances, therefore

Recovery—Attachment—State’s right of priority—Sale proceeds of attached property taken by some other attaching decree holder—Recovery of tax due to the Department—Prohibitory order issued by Collector in respect of certain shares belonging to the d

Held by the Hon`ble Court that, under the settlement of the contract damages are paid and no physical delivery, only price difference between sale and purchase is considered. Therefore loss on sale of share is a speculative loss.

Held by hon"ble court that under mercantile system of accounting assessee is entitled to deduction of loss/ expenditure in the year in which such entry is made in books of account. Hence, A.O. is not justified in disallowing deduction for amount paya

The Bombay High Court has ruled that companies are bound to pay the prescribed minimum wage

Section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction of tax at source - Interest other than interest on securities - Assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 - Whether where assessee had borrowed money from financiers for making payment to its suppliers

Section 24 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income from house property - Deductions - Assessment years 1998-99 and 2001-02 - Assessees were co-owners of lease-hold rights in respect of a property situated at New Delhi - They had sublet said property to

Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income-tax authorities - Power to transfer cases - Block period 1-4-1987 to 10-2-1998 - Assessing Officer, Delhi, consequent to order allegedly passed under section 127 transferring assessee’s case from Bomba

Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be allowed only on actual payment - Whether section 43B(f) is to be struck down being arbitrary, unconscionable and de hors Apex Court decision in case of Bharat

Held by the Hon`ble Court that, neither the assessee nor the Department proves anything about the loans therefore concealment was not proved and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified in law.