As regards the issue raised with regard to rejecting the method in the change of valuation of closing stock, we find that the finding arrived at by the three authorities below that the change in the valuation of closing stock was not bona fide is a pure finding of fact and no question of law arises much less a substantial question of law.
We do not find any error in the approach of the authorities below. Merely because the interest was debited in the books of accounts maintained on mercantile basis would not mean that the interest had become due and accrued because admittedly the interest liability would become due not during the relevant previous year but only for the first time on 18.11.1996.
The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IB (10) which was rejected by the AO but allowed by the CIT (A). On appeal by the department, the Tribunal ruled against the assessee and held that it was not eligible for deduction. The assessee filed a MA u/s 254 (2) pointing out that it had cited a judgement of the Kolkota Bench of the Tribunal (which had been considered by the CIT (A)) and a judgement of the Kolkota High Court which had not been considered by the Tribunal when deciding the appeal and the same was a ‘mistake apparent from the record’.
S. 54 provides that if an assessee has LTCG on transfer of a residential house and he purchases or constructs a residential house within the specified period then the amount appropriated towards the new house shall be deducted from the LTCG.
ITAT was correct in law in allowing depreciation to the assessee on the actual cost of the germplasm seeds and the actual cost incurred by the assessee much before becoming an assessee can still be treated as an actual cost to the assessee when depreciation has to be claimed.
CIT vs. G. R. Shipping (Bombay High Court) :- The assessee, engaged in shipping business, owned a barge which was included in the block of assets. The barge met with an accident and sank on 6.3.2000 (AY 2000-01). As efforts to retrieve the barge were uneconomical, the barge was sold on as-is-where- is in May 2001 (AY 2002-03).
We are of the firm opinion that the present writ petition is liable to succeed with costs. The reasons which have been recorded seeking reopening of the assessment, and as reproduced above show that there is no application of mind by the Assessing Officer which can be said to be the mind of a reasonable person to arrive at a conclusion, which has been arrived at in view of the reasons recorded.
All these appeals have been preferred under Section 260A (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ”Act 1961′) by the Revenue as well as by the Assessee. It provides for filing of an appeal in the form of a memorandum of appeal within 120 days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the Assessee or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner. It is an admitted position that all these appeals have been preferred beyond the period of limitation as provided under the aforesaid Section and the appellants have filed applications for extensi
In respect of AY 2000-01, the assessee filed a ROI. In the accompanying balance sheet it was disclosed that prior period expenditure of Rs. 5,41,850 was debited to the P&L A/c and that interest of Rs. 8,34,720 receivable from a particular party had not been accounted for as income. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) in which he did not make any addition on account
A landmark decision recently delivered by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. INDIAN VISIT. COM (P.) LTD. is sure to cheer the hearts of several business entities that spend large amounts in developing their websites.
