Who can conduct Secretarial Audit? Only a member of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India holding certificate of practice (company secretary in practice) can conduct Secretarial Audit and furnish the Secretarial Audit Report to the company. [Section 204(1) of Companies Act, 2013]
There has been much controversy over the above issue. Much complications have taken place in comparison to earlier years in respect of filling of Audit Reports and as well as Income Tax Return. Some years ago, in the tax audit cases, the due date for filling was October which was reduced to September. Tax- payers are complying to the requirements introduced every year otherwise they are forced to pay penalties.
In the case of CIT vs. Suman Dhamija, the Supreme Court held that CBDT Instruction specifying monetary limits for filing appeals applicable only to appeals filed after that date and not to pending appeals.
Glen Villiams Vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)- Assesse was a dealer of bakery products, filed its return. During assessment, it was found that assesse represented certain amount towards sundry creditors in its books.
CIT Vs.Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Assesse received interest on inter-coporate deposit which was offered to tax in earlier years. Subsequently, assesse made certain provision for bad debts.
ACIT vs. R.P.G.Credit & Capital Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) – In course of assessment, AO made addition under Section 68 .CIT (A) remanded matter back for obtaining confirmation of creditors. AO gave a remand report that he was satisfied with confirmation given by creditors and loan appeared to be genuine.
JCIT vs. Cybertech Systems & Software P. Ltd.,(ITAT Mumbai) Assesse’s claim for exemption u/s 10B was denied. A.O. also passed a penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) for raising a false claim for exemption. Tribunal found that assesse had not even challenged rejection of claim in appeal.
In the case of Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. Vs. UOI Assesse’s case for exemption under section 10A was allowed in earlier years by Tribunal. During the relevant year, the Tribunal disallowed assessee claim.
ITAT Mumbai has held in the case of C.R. developments Vs. JCIT that time limit for investment is six months from the date of transfer and even if such investment falls under two financial years, the benefit claimed by the assessee cannot be denied.
ITAT Mumbai has In the case of CIT Vs. Sh. Chandrakant V. Gosalia held that Loan given by Company to its substantial shareholder will attracts provisions of section 2 (22)(e) of Income Tax Act,1961 if the same were not lent in ordinary course of business and mere payment of loan amount would not escape assesse from provision of Section 2 (22)(e).
