In case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62, the Supreme Court in the context of an assessee making provision for estimated expenditure towards warranty observed that provision is a liability which can be measured only by using substantial degree of estimation. Such provision is recognized when an assessee had a present obligation as a result of past events, and it is possible that any outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation and further a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of obligation.
Our beloved Institute of Chartered Accountants of India(ICAI) is the world’s 2nd biggest accounting body and the one with constitutional powers of framing & governing accounting practices in India. Ministry of Corporate Affairs with its new proposal of NFRA has plans to take away the two big powers of ICAI i.e,
The 2013-14 Budget will be presented when the Indian economy is going through one of its most difficult phase. The 2012-13 Budget had forecast a growth rate of 7.6% and an inflation rate of 6.5%. In the first half of 2012-13, the economy grew by around 5.3% & likely to be almost same in the […]
Whether the company is maintaining proper records showing full particulars, including quantitative details and situation of fixed assets. The clause requires the auditor to comment whether the company is maintaining proper records showing full particulars, including quantitative details and situation of fixed assets.
In the present case, no irregularity or inaccuracy or falsity in the figures furnished by the appellant both on 05.02.2007 and in the rebate claims has been alleged. Moreover, it appears to us somewhat strange that none of the authorities below has demonstrated as to how the appellant could have complied with the requirement prior to the date of the export of the IT-enabled services.
In the instant case, the appellant was a secured creditor. It had the claim for Rs. 500 and above. The creditor also pleaded, the company was insolvent and unable to pay its debts. The appellant also claimed, it was just and equitable that the company should be wound up. The above pleas could only be resisted by the company once they would raise the bona fide dispute meaning thereby, if the creditor has an admitted claim it must be paid, in default that could only be resisted by raising a bona fide dispute. In the instant case, creditor could prove that it had a claim. From the pleading, it would hardly appear that the company could dispute, far to speak of bona fide, that could resist a winding up petition. The Judge did not advert to the said issue.
Flat purchased by the assessee in the name of his wife out of the sale consideration of flat in the name of the assessee should be considered as allowable deduction u/s.54(2) of the Income Tax Act.
In the present case there was no prior intimation of the proposed action of adjusting the amount of refund due to the assessee towards any other amount due from the assessee. It was an intimation informing the appellant that the amount of refund due for the assessment year 1997-98 stood adjusted against the outstanding demand for the assessment year 1995-96. It would not be same thing as a prior intimation of the proposed action. As the adjustment of the refund amount was made without following the provisions of section 245 and without giving a proper intimation the same was bad in law. The provisions of section 245 being mandatory in nature, any action taken contrary to such provision would be bad in law.
It is well settled in law that a tax withholding liability is a vicarious liability, as a part of tax collection mechanism, in the sense that when there is no primary liability of the taxpayer, proxy liability of the tax deductor also does not survive. In a situation like the one, we are in seisin of, in which the CBDT itself accepts that there is hardly any primary tax liability of the recipients of income.
It is not disputed by the assessee that the return of income was filed beyond the time limit prescribed by section 139(1) and even section 139(4). Under sub-section (4) of section 139 the assessee ought to have filed the return on or before 31-3-2000. However, the return was filed only on 10-10-2000. Under general principles, a refund of taxes can be granted only where the return of income is processed under section 143(1) or an assessment is made under section 143(3) after inquiry.
