It is an admitted fact that the assessee has changed the method of depreciation from straight line method to written down value method. Deprecation has been calculated in accordance with the new method from the date of assets coming into use.
In the case of Cardinal Drugs Pvt Ltd.Hon’ble ITAT has observed that there was no scope for the A.O. to have resorted to the provision of Section 154 of the Act for the purpose of enhancing the income of the assessee.by stating as under:- The A.O. on long drawn process of reasoning should not have passed the order under Section154 of the Act. The issue raised by the A.O. in proceeding under Section 154 of the Act is highly debatable which requires the issue to be reconsidered by the A.O.about applicability of the provision of Section 115JB of the Act which was notraised by the A.O. in assessment or appellate proceedings.
Agra ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Yogendra Kumar Singhal has held that Quality & lavishness of construction is not incriminating material. Reference cannot be made to the Valuation Officer in the absence of incriminating material/document found during the course of search
Hon’ble ITAT Agra in the case of ACIT V/s. Kalyani Chaturvedi held that Re-appreciation of seized material in subsequent proceedings by the AO is unjustified and quashed the Re-assessment Order. Hon’ble ITAT has held as under
ALLAHABAD High Court Rejects Revenue’s denial of Sec 80G(5) recognition on the ground that the assessee-trust did not commence one of the activities mentioned in object clause- The fact that the assessee was still to commence the activity of establishing a hospital for imparting medical treatment would not by itself result in the rejection of the claim for recognition.
SC has dismissed the revenue appeal in which the Allahabad High Court had confirmed the ITAT stand of quashing the assessment order on the ground that the assessment order in the name of individuals could not be made when the warrant of authorisation was issued in the joint names of Ashok Chawla, Smt. Madhu Chawla and Shri Anuj Chawla.
Section 50C is not final determination to prove that it is a case of escapement of income. The report of approved valuer may give estimated figure on the basis of facts of each case. Therefore, on mere applicability of section 50C would not disclose any escapement of income in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income belatedly on 26/03/2010 showing taxable income of Rs. 6,03,414/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for short on 05/04/2010.
