S. 36(1)(vii) :Bad debt – Inter corporate deposits in respect of purchase of vehicles and plant and machinery –Mere wrote off is sufficient –It is not necessary for the assessee to establish or prove that the debt has in fact become irrecoverable but it would be sufficient if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. [ S.28 (i) ]
S. 28(iv) : Business income – Value of any benefit or perquisites – Converted in to money or not – Waiver of loan cannot be assessed as benefit or perquisites [ S.4 ]
S. 147 : Reassessment – After the expiry of four years- Year of chargeability – Reassessment is held to be bad in law – No failure to disclose material facts .[ S. 45(1) , 45(2),143(3) ,143(1) , 148, Art .226 ]
S.54F : Capital gains- Investment in a residential house –The usage of the property has to be considered-Several independent residential units in the same building have to be treated as one residential unit and there is no impediment to allowance of exemption u/s 54F(1) [ S.45 ]
S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – The amendment to S. 40(a)(ia) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2015, which restricts the disallowance for failure to deduct TDS to 30% of the expenditure instead of 100%, is curative in nature and should be applied retrospectively [ S.194H ]
Principle of Natural Justice -Direct taxes – Important case laws .
Indian Evidence Act ,1872
S.3 : Natural Justice – Right of cross examination – Is integral part of Natural justice though not provided under the statute – Affidavit of own is not evidence with in meaning of S. 3 of the Evidence Act , 1872 .
S. 143(3) : Assessment – Limited scrutiny cannot be taken for complete scrutiny unless the AO forms a reasonable view that there is a possibility of under assessment of income – Approval by the PCIT in a mechanical manner is not valid – S.292BB does not save the infirmity – Order is quashed as a nullity . [ S. 292BB ]
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Business expenditure – Full particulars were declared in the return – Merely because disallowance of expense , levy of penalty is held to be not justified on merit -Not sticking of inapplicable portion in the notice -In assessment order it was clearly mentioned that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) had been initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.- Penalty cannot be quashed only on technical ground not sticking of inapplicable portion in the notice [ S.37(1), 274 ]
S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Question of law – can be entertained by the High Court on the issue of jurisdiction even if the same was not raised before the Tribunal- The question relating to non-striking off of the inapplicable portion in the s. 271(1)(c) show-cause notice goes to the root of the lis & is a jurisdictional issue . [ S.271(1) (c ) 274 ]