Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.50 seconds)Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh vs Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana Etc on 7 August, 1991
The purport of Section 40 of the Act fell for consideration and
interpretation by the Honble Supreme Court in Attar Singh Gurmukh
Singh v. Income-tax Officer . It was in the context of a challenge
under Section 40A(3), Their Lordships observed,
As to the validity of section 40A(3), it was urged
that, if the price of the purchased material is not allowed
to be adjusted against the sale price of the material sold
for want of proof of payment by a crossed cheque or a
crossed bank draft, then the income-tax levied will not be
on the income but it will be on an assumed income. It is
said that the provision authorizing levy of tax on an
assumed income would be a restriction on the right to
carry on business, besides being arbitrary.
Smt. Harshila Chordia vs Income-Tax Officer on 7 November, 2006
Several High Courts followed this dictum and took the view
that the provision must be interpreted liberally and the assessees
cannot be subjected to undue rigor. The Rajastan High Court in
Smt. Harshila Chordia v. Income-tax Officer went a step further,
and held that the circumstances mentioned in the circular of the
CBDT cannot be said to be exhaustive, and that the Board clearly
expressed the view that clause (j) of Rule 6DD must be liberally
construed.
Section 40 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
1