In the case of TRF Limited vs. CIT (Supreme Court) Supreme Court had to consider whether after the amendment to s. 36 (1) (vii) w.e.f. 1.4.1989, an assessee had to establish, as a matter of fact, that the debt advanced by the assessee had, in fact, become irrecoverable or whether writing off the debt as irrecoverable in the accounts was sufficient. HELD deciding in favour of the assessee:
Where a partner retires from a partnership and the amount of his share in the net partnership assets after deduction of liabilities and prior charges is determined on taking accounts in the manner prescribed by the relevant provisions of the partnership law there is no element of transfer of interest in the partnership assets by the retired partner to the continuing partners.
The assessee, a private limited company, provided for depreciation in its Profit & loss account by adopting the rates specified in the Income-tax Rules and computed its “book profits” u/s 115J on that basis. The AO recomputed the book profits by adopting the depreciation rates as per Schedule XIV to the Companies Act as those were lower than the income-tax rates.
The assessee, a co-op credit society, was engaged in providing credit facilities to its members and also marketing the agricultural produce of its members. The assessee had surplus funds which it invested in short-term deposits with banks and govt securities. The question arose whether the said interest earned on the said deposits was “business profits”
Explore the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on bad debt write-offs post-April 1, 1989. Assessing officers must consider the write-off in company accounts.
Section 15(1)(b) would be applicable only when the goods are cleared from the warehouse under Section 68 of the Act, i.e., within the initially permitted period or during the permitted extended period. It is trite to say that when the goods are cleared from the warehouse after the expiry of the permitted period or its permitted extension, the goods are deemed to have been improperly removed under Section 72(1)(b) of the Act, with the consequence that the rate of duty has to be computed according to the rate applicable on the date of expiry of the permitted period under Section 61.
Chapter XIV- B provides that where a search u/s 132 is conducted, the AO shall determine the undisclosed income for the block period. S. 158 BC(b) provides that in making the block assessment the provisions of s. 143 (2) shall “so far as may be, apply”. The Supreme Court had to consider whether a block assessment order passed without service of notice on the assessee u/s 143(2) within the prescribed period of time was valid. HELD, deciding in favour of the assessee:
In a recent ruling Supreme Court (SC) [2010-TIOL-06- SC-IT-L13] in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (Taxpayer) held that income cannot be reassessed on a mere change of opinion, as that would imply conferring arbitrary powers on the Tax Authority. It is only when there is a tangible material to believe that income has escaped assessment
For the aforestated reasons, we hold that AAD is a timing difference, it is not a reserve, it is not carried though profit and loss account and that it is “income received in advance” subject to adjustment in future and, therefore, clause (b) of Explanation- I to Section 115JB is not applicable. | Accordingly, the impugned ruling is set aside
In CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court was considering a case of reopening u/s 147 within 4 years from the end of the assessment year. The Court held that when a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of section 143 (3) of the Act, a presumption can
