Railways Act , 1989
S. 20D: Hearing of objections -Opportunity of being heard – Substantive right – Natural Justice -Audi Alteram Partem – Not mere formality – Until the order is communicated to the person affected by it , it cannot be regarded as anything more than being provisional in character [ Constitution of India , Art, 14, 19 , 300A Land Acquisition Act , 1894, S. 5A ]
S. 244A : Refund – Interest on refunds – Un paid amount of tax the assessee entitle to interest this would not amount to granting interest on interest . [ S.244A(1) (b) ]
S. 80JJAA : Employment of new workmen – Exemption cannot be denied when the employees fulfilled the condition of being employed for 300 days for the year under consideration , even though such employees do not fulfil the condition of being employed for 300 days in the immediately preceding assessment year .
S. 50 : Capital gains – Depreciable assets – Block of assets – Expenditure incurred on account of stamp duty , registration charges and society transfer fee , as per contractual terms is an allowable expenditure [ S.45, 50(1)(i) ]
S. 44AD :Presumptive taxation- Once business income is offered on the presumption taxation , separate addition cannot be made as cash credits [ S.68 ]
S. 44AD :Presumptive taxation- Presumptive taxation is not applicable to interest and remuneration received by a partnership firm [ S.28(v), 40(b) ]
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Provision made for site restoration is a contingent liability – Allowable as deduction on the principle of commercial expediency .[ S.145 ]
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Discount in issue of ESOP is an allowable deduction – Contingent liability .[S.4, 143(3) 145, Companies Act , 1956 , S. 2(15A) ]
Interpretation -Natural Justice – There is a clear distinction between cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principle
Interpretation -Natural Justice – There is a clear distinction between cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principle