Where the assessee had not claimed nor obtained a deduction in respect of a security deposit treating it as a trading liability, section 41 (1) cannot be invoked when such security deposit is refunded to the assessee. In the present case, none of the above probabilities existed and this is a case of amount
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.
Learned Chartered Accountant submits that the excess amount paid in the subsequent period may be treated as mere deposit which can be adjusted against the earlier short payment and it may be paid alongwith interest. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Chartered Accountant. The assessee paid the service tax of excess amount against the taxable service which cannot be treated as mere deposit. Therefore, such adjustment is contrary to the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Rules. Hence, demand of tax on this issue is justified.
For claiming any debt as a bad debt, one has to satisfy following two conditions: (1) Debt is written off as bad debt in the Profit and Loss Account by making corresponding entry in the party account. (2) Debt is taken in to account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which debt is written off or in earlier previous year.
The assessee had two divisions, one at Dombivili and the other at Surat. The division at Surat was closed since two/ three years. The assessee claimed depreciation on the assets of the said Surat division which was rejected by the AO and the CIT (A) on the ground that the assets were not “used” and depreciation could not be allowed. On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal:
owner means a person who has got valid title legally conveyed to him after complying with the requirements of law such as the Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act, etc. But, in the context of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, having regard to the ground realities and further having regard to the object.
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 financial affairs of both the donors do not evoke confidence that they could have made the gift of large amounts compared to their incomes in a circumstance when their monies were locked up elsewhere. They themselves did not own any immovable property. These facts impinge directly on the genuineness of the gifts also.
For a finance company, money is the product with which it carries on the business. Since the directors have made maiden venture. The necessity of establishing good will and reputation, that too in a finance company, is of utmost necessity. At the same time, it cannot give a permanent license to the company to continue to violate the provisions of section 269SS/269T.
We have heard learned counsel for the assessee. Learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to various clauses in leave and license agreement and submitted that the premises were given purely on license basis with fixtures and fittings. It was also pointed out that under the license agreement, the assessee also retained duplicate key of the main entrance door, which indicates that the control and possession of the premises was always with the assessee.
