Though as per s. 32(1) the asset is to be owned and “used” for the purpose of business or profession, the expression “used for the purpose of business” when applied to block asset would mean use of block asset and not any specific items in the said block as individual assets have lost their identity after becoming inseparable part of the block asset for purposes of depreciation.

Though the Rule conferring power on the Tribunal has been struck down, one cannot altogether lose sight of the rule that every court or tribunal has an inherent power to dismiss a proceeding for non prosecution when the petitioner/appellant before it does not wish to prosecute the proceeding. In such a situation, unless the statute clearly requires the court or tribunal to hear the appeal / proceeding and decide it on merits it can dismiss the appeal / proceeding for. The power must be exercised judiciously and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case.

The effect of the amendment to s. 36 (1) (vii) is that it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt had become bad in the previous year and mere writing of the debt as irrecoverable is sufficient. However, the said entry of write off of the bad debt in the books of accounts is not conclusive and the AO is not precluded from making inquiries as to whether the entries are genuine and not imaginary or fanciful. The AO has the power u/s 143(2) to see that the entries are not mere paper work or fake.

The effect of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Transmission Corporation of India 239 ITR 587 is that the moment there is a payment to a non-resident, there is an obligation on the payer to deduct tax at source u/s 195 (1). The only way to escape the liability is for the payer to make an application to the AO u/s 195 (2) for non-deduction or for deduction at a lower rate. If the payer does not make an application and obtain an order u/s 195 (2), it is not open to him to argue that the payment has not resulted in taxable income in the hands of the non-resident recipient and that, therefore, there is no failure on the part of the payer to deduct tax u/s 195 (1)

Under the Doctrine of Merger, once an appeal against the order passed by an authority is preferred and is decided by the appellate authority, the order of the said authority merges into the order of the appellate authority. With this merger, the order of the original authority ceases to exist and the order of the appellate authority prevails, in which the order of the original authority is merged. For all intent and purposes, it is the order of the appellate authority that has to be seen for purposes of determining the limitation period u/s 154 (7) for passing a rectification order.

S. 132 (1) (c) empowers the officer to enter the premises etc and search it if he has “reason to believe” that “any person” is in possession of any money, bullion etc representing undisclosed income. 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.

The view of the Gujarat High Court that while s. 147 permits re-assessment of income that has escaped assessment for any assessment year, assessment under Chapter XIV-B is for a block period of 10/6 years without reference to any particular assessment year and that, therefore, s. 147 does not apply to a block assessment cannot be accepted in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Suresh N. Gupta 297 ITR 322 where it was held that the other provisions of the Act would be applicable to the scheme under Chapter XIV-B, if no conflict arises upon such application. The provisions of Chapter XIV prescribing the period of limitation for reopening of assessments apply to block assessments under Chapter XIV-B and there is no conflict between the two.

Since the brokerage payable by the client to the broker was a part of the debt and that debt had been taken into account in computing the income, the conditions of s. 36 (2) (i) read with s. 36 (1) (viii) were satisfied and the bad debt was allowable as a deduction

Disallowance u/s 14A and Rule 8D requires a finding of incurring of expenditure. If it is found that for earning exempted income no expenditure has been incurred, disallowance u/s 14A cannot stand. The disallowance u/s 14A and Rule 8D cannot be made on presumption.

Mahendra Mills 243 ITR 56 has to be understood in the context in which the said decision was rendered. The decision was rendered in the context of determining total income under Ch. IV and not in the context of determining the deduction under Ch. VIA. Mahendra Mills has not laid down any proposition of law that by disclaiming depreciation, the assessee can claim enhanced deduction allowable under any other provision in the Act.