Clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 36 of the Act itself provides that the claim for deduction as bad debt would not be allowed unless such debt or part thereof has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year.
In the present case, the assessee disclosed the factum of housing project, the construction of shops and the profit derived therefrom. These were the primary facts sufficient for the Assessing Officer to proceed in its assessment process. He had undertaken such a process and applied the facts to the provisions of law by applying his mind.
We notice that in the return filed by the petitioner, in addition to claiming deduction of gross income of interest and dividend of Rs.1,81,27,606 under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, the petitioner further provided various details. For example, in the Annexure-VII to the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was bifurcated into dividend income of Rs. 53,71,450 and interest income of Rs. 1,27,56,156.
The case of the petitioners is that the authorities have no power to levy such service tax on the petitioners, who are service recipients as per Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules and also as per subsequently introduced Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 18.4.2006.
We notice that in this respect the provision is silent. We may therefore record that the interpretation adopted by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment would ordinarily give rise to a question of law particularly when it is pointed out that there is no previous decision of any High Court on the subject However, the issue has been made sufficiently clear by the CBDT Circular No.17/2008 dated 26-11-2008. In the said circular, this very issue has been examined and clarified in the following manner:—
In the facts of the present case also, it may be that if the Assessing Officer had made some efforts and examined the record of the previous assessment year, he may have come to know that this was a search and could have taken consequent action thereon. However, that by itself would not absolve the petitioner from the duty to disclose all primary facts before the Assessing Officer.
At time when query was raised under the head ‘Selling & Distribution Expenditure’, had there been insistence that TDS was required to be deducted and the amount specified to the tune of Rs. 22,70,869 was not required to be allowed as Trade Incentive without deducting TDS, the same ought to have been reflected somewhere in the computation of income and that would have bearing on the computation itself.
Being a public company, ordinarily, provisions of section 179(1) of the Act cannot be applied. However, if the factors noted by the Assistant Commissioner in his impugned order dated 15.4.2002 and highlighted by us in this judgement are duly established, it would certainly be a fit case where invocation of principle of lifting of corporate veil would be justified.
A Chartered Accountant has an obligation, not only statutory but also moral and social, to be absolutely and completely diligent and cautious and careful while preparing, signing and certifying Annual Accounts and/or Audit report. Several Government and private organizations and individuals rely on the report/certificate by Chartered Accountant and once a particular factual aspect or entries, etc.
In the background of above legal position, we have to ascertain from the facts on record whether it is possible to ascertain the cost of acquisition of the tenancy rights. We may recall that the assessee and the landlord entered into an agreement under which, the landlord agreed to rent out four existing floors to the assessee, and for three more under construction floors of the building,
