Unfortunately, for the appellant NBFCs. are not covered by Section 36(l)(viia) of the I.T Act and so much so, explanation to section 36(l)(vii) squarely applies or in other words, the appellant-N. B.F.Cs. are not entitled to deduction of any Provision created for bad and doubtful debts, no matter such provision
In Y. Venugopala Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another, (2003) 263 ITR 30, the Karnataka High Court interpreted the words ‘notwithstanding’ used in Section 88 of KVSS and has held that a matter which has already been settled cannot be reopened under the scheme and the benefit under the scheme should not be extended to an assessee even with regard to the admitted income.
The Section indicates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by the learned Single Judge of the High Court no further appeal shall lie notwithstanding the above three situations mentioned.
The consequence of non-production of certified copy will naturally lead to dis allowance of claims of deduction toward? payment of interest, remuneration, bonus etc. paid to partner by the firm by virtue of Section 185 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the production of certified copy of instrument of partnership is mandatory for claiming assessment in the status of a – firm for any -assessment year commencing from 1993-94 on wards irrespective of whether such assesses was assessed as a registered firm up to 1993-94. In principle, we therefore, uphold the findings of the Tribunal.
In respect of the question concerning distance of the agricultural land from the municipal limits of city of Khanna the Tribunal has decided the issue holding that distance of 2 kms.from the municipal limits of city of Khanna has to be reckoned for the purposes of Section 2(14)(iii)of the Act by measuring the same as per the road distance and not as per straight line distance on a horizontal plane or as per crow’s flight
Whether, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessing officer had to record his reasons and based on those reasons form his opinion that the income has escaped assessment by relying on two judgments of this Hon’ble Court in 133 JTJ? 199 and 155 ITR 748 before reopening assessments when Section 147
In the instant case, learned counsel for the Revenue is not in a position to demonstrate or satisfy us that due to the change of accounting method adopted by the respondent/assessee , which is permissible in law as per the ratio laid down in (i) CIT v. Matchwell Electricals (I.) Ltd. (2003)263 ITR 227 (Bom) and (ii) Hela Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 129 (Cal), the Revenue suffered any loss or such a change of methodology attracts tax evasion. Concededly, there is no finding to that effect in the assessment order or in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
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.
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.
We find from the scheme of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 that whenever a dispute may arise as to the classification of the goods, other than its description, quantity and FOB value, the customs authorities have to refer the dispute for adjudication to DGFT under Section 13 of the Act. It is only if the DGFT as the licensing and also adjudicating authority decides against the licensee, that the customs authorities will get jurisdiction to confiscate and levy penalty on such goods.
