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.
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.
The assessee wrote off an amount as a “bad debt” in its accounts and claimed a deduction u/s 36 (1) (vii). The AO asked the assessee to furnish information as to the names and addresses of the debtors, copies of ledger accounts and efforts made to realize these dues. On failure by the assessee to furnish the information, the claim was disallowed on the ground that the onus to prove that the debt was a bad debt was on the assessee which had not been discharged.
As the search warrant was issued in the joint names of the assessee and her spouse, it means that the officer had reason to believe that the undisclosed assets and income were held jointly. If so, it is not open for the AO to assess the assessee individually on the basis of the assets and documents seized during the course of search in pursuance to the said warrant but the assessment ought to have been only in the capacity of AOP or BOI.
All these appeals have been preferred under Section 260A (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ”Act 1961′) by the Revenue as well as by the Assessee. It provides for filing of an appeal in the form of a memorandum of appeal within 120 days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the Assessee or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner. It is an admitted position that all these appeals have been preferred beyond the period of limitation as provided under the aforesaid Section and the appellants have filed applications for extensi
In respect of AY 2000-01, the assessee filed a ROI. In the accompanying balance sheet it was disclosed that prior period expenditure of Rs. 5,41,850 was debited to the P&L A/c and that interest of Rs. 8,34,720 receivable from a particular party had not been accounted for as income. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) in which he did not make any addition on account
S. 260A permits the filing of an appeal to the High Court within 120 days. In CIT vs. Velingkar Brothers 289 ITR 382 (Bom) (FB), The Full Bench held that the Court had power to condone delay u/s 260A. However, in Hongo India 236 E.L.T. 417 and Chaudharana Steels 238 E.L.T. 705, the Supreme Court held in the context of sections 35H & 35G
Section 271B, read with section 44AB, of the Income-tax, 1961 – Penalty – For failure to get accounts audited – Assessment years 1987-88 to 1989-90 – Whether section 271B is not attracted in a case where no account has been maintained and instead recourse under section 271A can be taken – Held, yes
Depending on the facts, nursery income may or may not be agricultural income. We are giving here two HC judgements that will help you. You can always file a return for AY 07-08 claiming nursery income as agriculture income(if facts permit so) and this would not be concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact the respondents had no Jurisdiction to seize the trucks and he has claimed damages. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. It has been repeatedly held by several Division Benches of this Court that trucks cannot be seized under the U. P. Trade-tax Act e.g., in the case of M/s. D. B. Timber Merchant, Ballia v. Commissioner of Sales-tax and another, 1992 UPTC 18, M/s. M. S. Freight Carriers and another v. Sales Tax Officer, Check Post, Ghaziabad, 1992 UPTC 273, M/s. Freight Carriers of India, Calcutta v. Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax, Ghaziabad and others, 1992 UPTC 604, etc.
