Section 113 — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section 113, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
CIT v Vatika Township P Ltd
Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
An amendment adds a new levy. Does it reach back to earlier years?
Not unless the statute says so. Legislation is presumed not to operate retrospectively, and that presumption applies with full force where the amendment imposes a new burden. Only clarificatory or beneficial amendments may be read back.
-
T. S. Balaram, ITO v Volkart Brothers
Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
What actually counts as a 'mistake apparent from the record' under s.154?
An obvious and patent mistake. Not one that must be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where two opinions are conceivable. A decision on a debatable point of law cannot be rectified.
-
T.S. Kumarasamy v Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax
ITATCuts both ways
In my block assessment the officer said my seized books were unreliable, and then taxed the loan entries in those same books as undisclosed income. Can he have it both ways?
No. The Chennai Bench deleted the addition of Rs 1.68 crores. An officer who doubts the veracity of the accounts cannot at the same time rely on entries in them to make an addition; that is blowing hot and cold in the same breath. Section 132(4A) requires the contents of books found in a search to be presumed true, so it is not open to the officer to say the loan entries are false, and loans recorded in the books are not undisclosed income within section 158B(b). The estimate that half the remaining creditors were bogus, drawn from an enquiry with four out of 43 whose report was never put to the assessee, was arbitrary. The Rs 50 lakhs admitted on oath, however, could not be retracted.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.