CIT Vs. Shri Varanasi Khanta Rao (Andhra Pradesh High Court) When once the Commissioner has got power to point out the errors which had the effect on the revenue, the Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate authority on the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Act.
The Income Tax Act provides that on determination of the gross total income of an assessee after considering income from all the heads, certain deductions therefrom may be allowed. These deductions detailed in chapter VIA of the Income Tax Act must be distinguished from the exemptions provides in Section 10 of the Act. While the former are to be reduced from the gross total income, the latter do not form part of the income at all.
Sri Damodarlal Badruka Vs. ITO (Andhra Pradesh High Court) It is well settled that once an assessment is re-opened by virtue of the order passed by CIT under Section 263 of the Act, the initial order of assessment ceases to be operative.
CIT Vs. M/s. Sileman Khan Mahaboob Khan (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Merely because one of the objectives, in the partnership deed, was to let out the godowns would not mean that the assessee had undertaken the activity of construction of godowns and letting them out as business activity.
CA Sandeep Kanoi Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley is expected to present his first full term budget on 28th February 2015. Taxpayers once again start expecting Budget will provide them long overdue tax reliefs. Individual and Salaried Tax payer expects that what Mr. Jaitley not done in last budget will do in this budget and […]
Recently I heard that VAN Heusen offers a Service In which I can order My Shirt and Trouser online based on my own measurements. I do not have to adjust with cloths which are not made for me but for people of almost my built-up. I decided to give a try to Readymade Shirts of […]
One can claim the CPE hours for Unstructured learning by filing a Self Declaration Form with the ICAI after the end of every calendar year.Current Block for Compliance of CPE Hour is from 01.01.20111 to 31.12.2013.
Smt. Rajneet Sandhu vs. DCIT (2010) 133 TTJ 0064 (Chandigarh): In this case the construction of the house was not completed within the prescribed period. It was held that section 54F does not prescribe that the residential house should be completed within the prescribed period and benefit under s. 54F was allowed.
when the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has admitted substantial question of law on the addition, it becomes apparent that the addition so made has become debatable. The penalty was imposed on the basis of addition so made, therefore, when the addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed has become doubtful/debatable, therefore, penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot survive.
Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that depreciation not claimed for by the assessee, cannot be allowed as a deduction despite the introduction of the concept of block assets. Depreciation is optional to the assessee and once he chooses not to claim it, the Assessing Officer cannot allow it while computing the income. Further, once the depreciation is option, applying the same ratio of Gujarat High Court and other Courts, it will be optional for block of assets also.
