Section 2(43)

Section 2(43) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 2(43), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• CIT v Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  CPC has computed my MAT credit on income-tax alone and left out the surcharge and the education cess in both the MAT and the normal computation. That has cut the credit down. Is the Department right?
  No. The Madras High Court held that MAT credit under s.115JAA includes surcharge and education cess and is not confined to income-tax stripped of them, following its own earlier judgment in PCIT v. Scope International Pvt. Ltd. and the Supreme Court's construction of 'income tax' in CIT v. K. Srinivasan. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the substantial question answered against it.
• Vodafone India Services Pvt Ltd v Union of India (Gujarat) High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The AO rejected my stay application in a few lines and told me to pay 20%. Can that order stand?
  No. An order under s.220(6) that brushes aside the assessee's submissions and mechanically directs payment of 20% is not a speaking order and will be quashed. The Gujarat High Court also held that a penalty demand is not 'tax', so the CBDT's 20% benchmark and the parameters that govern a tax demand do not simply carry across to a penalty appeal.
• Mohmmad Zamir Khan v ACIT High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  My years are before June 2013. Can the department still say the Explanation to s.179 makes me liable for the company's interest and penalty?
  The Bombay High Court says yes. It held that the Explanation added to s.179 with effect from 1 June 2013 came in only to remove the doubt created by the earlier decisions, that it is therefore clarificatory, and that on Gold Coin a clarificatory amendment operates retrospectively - so directors were liable for the company's penalty and interest for years as far back as 1995-96.
• Sanjay Ghai v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  The s.179 order against me is mostly interest and penalty, not tax. Can the department recover those from me as a director?
  On the section as it stood before 1 June 2013, no. The Delhi High Court held that 'tax due' in s.179(1) means tax as defined by s.2(43) and does not carry interest or penalty with it, so the director could not be made liable for anything more than the tax. That position has since been displaced by the Explanation to s.179 - read the validity note and the amendment warning before relying on this.
• DCIT v Total Oil India Pvt Ltd (Special Bench) ITATHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  My company paid dividend distribution tax on dividend to a French shareholder. Can I pay at the lower treaty rate on dividends instead of the section 115-O rate?
  No, on the reasoning of this Special Bench. It treated dividend distribution tax under section 115-O as a charge on the domestic company on its own distributed profits, not a tax paid on behalf of the shareholder, following the Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce that the company does not act as the shareholder's agent and the charge is not on dividend in the shareholder's hands. It held that Tata Tea, which upheld the constitutional validity of section 115-O, does not support the taxpayer, a precedent being an authority only for what it actually decides. On that footing the shareholder's treaty rate does not limit the section 115-O rate.

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.