We are of the view that the case of the applicant neatly fits into Section 44BB and all the ingredients of that section are satisfied. To attract the first part of section 44BB, the non-resident must be (a) engaged in the business of providing services or facilities; (b) such provision of services/facilities must be ‘in connection with’ the prospecting for or extraction or production of mineral oils.
Provision of Section 143 (2) of Income Act viz-aviz section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 36(1) both would be harmonized to give purposeful meaning to both the statutory provisions, as one extends benefit to the respondent-assessee of deduction for their debt or part thereof becoming bad and other authorizes Assessing Officer to see that provision of Income Tax Act are not flouted by any means.
Section 70(3) of the Act postulates that for any assessment year where there is a loss in respect of long term capital asset, the asscssee shall be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against the income, if any fas arrived at under a similar computation) made for the assessment year.
It is thus clear that the entire assessment order was not set aside to enable the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment; the order passed by the first appellate authority was only to enable to the Assessing Officer to vary the assessment originally made and not to take a reiook at all the issues which were considered in the original assessment order. Paragraph-2 of Circular No.334 is relevant in this context and hence reproduced for immediate reference:
Coming to the general proposition regarding condonation of delay, the learned counsel relied on a number of cases, which have already been summarized. In the case of Shakuntala Devi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that liberal construction should be placed on the words “sufficient cause” provided that no negligence,
Where the assessee had not claimed nor obtained a deduction in respect of a security deposit treating it as a trading liability, section 41 (1) cannot be invoked when such security deposit is refunded to the assessee. In the present case, none of the above probabilities existed and this is a case of amount
There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. The approach of the authorities should be justice oriented so as to advance cause of justice. If refund is legitimately due to the applicant, mere delay should not defeat the claim for refund.
Learned Chartered Accountant submits that the excess amount paid in the subsequent period may be treated as mere deposit which can be adjusted against the earlier short payment and it may be paid alongwith interest. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Chartered Accountant. The assessee paid the service tax of excess amount against the taxable service which cannot be treated as mere deposit. Therefore, such adjustment is contrary to the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Rules. Hence, demand of tax on this issue is justified.
For claiming any debt as a bad debt, one has to satisfy following two conditions: (1) Debt is written off as bad debt in the Profit and Loss Account by making corresponding entry in the party account. (2) Debt is taken in to account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which debt is written off or in earlier previous year.
an effective enforcement of provisions like 397/398 of the Act and the protection of rights of all shareholders without any scope for misuse or abuse is very important for the growth of industry or the corporate world. It is true that we have good regulations regulating the functioning of listed public companies, but, a good focus also to be made on the regulations governing private limited companies and especially the rights of shareholders in a private limited companies and unlisted public companies.
