If the rate of gross profit declared by the assessee in a particular period is lower as compared to the gross profit declared by him in the preceding year, that may alert the Assessing Officer and serve as a warning to him, to look into the accounts more carefully and to look for some material which could lead to the conclusion that the accounts maintained by the assessee were not correct.
The third proviso under section 15(1) of the SICA relieves the specified strength of secured creditors from shackle of taking consent of the BIFR and permits them to pursue their remedy under the provisions of Securitisation Act, which have been introduced as a special enactment, to further the cause of financial sector and the financial institutions to which the same is applicable.
If the remuneration demanded by the person proposed to be appointed as Special Auditor is not acceptable to the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, he may not assign the work to him; but, it would be difficult to accept that the special audit can be assigned to a person without fixing either the remuneration or the norms on which the remuneration is to be calculated after the work is completed and conveying the same to him.
If the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law but is also wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c).
It would be entirely arbitrary for the Assessing Officer to reopen the entire assessment under Section 147 to rectify an error or mistake which can be rectified under Section 154; an arbitrary exercise of power is certainly not a consequence which Parliament contemplates.
DECIDED BY: HIGH COURT OF KERALA, IN THE CASE OF: ACIT Vs. Hukum Chand Jain, APPEAL NO: ITA Nos. 18 and 20 to 22 of 2006, DECIDED ON August 10, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Though the issue raised in these connected appeals filed by the Revenue stands decided in favour of the assessees by […]
The fact that a surplus may incidentally arise from the activities of the trust, after meeting the expenditure incurred for conducting educational activities, would not disentitle the trust of the benefit of the provisions of Section 10(23C).
Where the assessee was not provided with any opportunity of being heard in the matter, the reasons assigned in the order which was “administrative convenience and for co-ordinating effective investigation” also could not be said to be the reasons as envisaged in Section 127(1).
Even if there is any lacuna in the procedure followed by the Assessing Authority while rejecting the objections raised by the assessee against the notices issued under sections 147 and 148(1), it is not as if the assessee is left in lurch and deprived of its right from raising such issue, and it is open to the assessee to challenge the same, even at the time of questioning the final assessment orders.
The decision of the High Court would bring some relief to NBFCs. However, given the fact that this is a debatable issue and unless affirmed by the SC, the tax authorities may continue to dispute the issue. This debate arises primarily due to the fact that under the Act, there is a specific provisions under Section 43D of the Income tax Act, 1961 dealing with interest on NPA with respect to specified financial institutions (including banks) which does not include NBFCs.
