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.
It is not disputed that tax was deducted at source by the tenant Union Motors Services Limited and they have issued some Certificates which has been given credit to by the Department. The present dispute relates to the failure of non issuance of TDS certificates by the tenant.
Issue which arises for our consideration is whether Rs. 12 lakhs paid by the appellant assessee to the seller at the time of purchase of the property in question must be construed as a cost of acquisition of the asset so as to be deducted from the full value of consideration received by the appellant assessee at the time when he had sold and transferred the property in question.
Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of Patiala held that the exemption notification issued by Central Govt. allowing non-deduction of TDS in case of certain deductees has an automatic effect as soon as the same is issued and there is no such requirement in the act to obliging deductor to specifically apply for availing the benefit under that notification.
Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of RFCL Limited vs. CIT held that the important business information acquired by assessee in the course of business purchase are intangible assets as the same are in the nature of business or commercial rights of similar nature on which the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation.
Advertisement expenditure was incurred in terms of the license agreement granting the distribution rights to the assessee by the associated enterprise, Discovery Asia Inc. Under this agreement, the respondent assessee had procured right to distribute the signals of Discovery
We find that the learned Tribunal taking note of the pendency of the appeal in this Court, preferred by the Revenue against the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Merilyn Shipping & Transport in I.T.A. No.477/Viz/2008 dated 29-03-2012, directed the Assessing Officer to re-decide the issue after the disposal of the appeal by this Court.
All the auditors cannot be placed on an equal footing and an assumption cannot be made that an auditor would be able to fulfil his obligations only up to 30 tax audit assignments under section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, per financial year.
The Tribunal should pass a fresh order not only in relation to the objection raised by the Assessee to the exercise of powers under section 263 of the IT Act, but on the merits of the claim as well. Merely because such an opportunity is given by us does not mean that the Tribunal is obliged
Recently, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Anand Decors & Ors. v. CTT, New Delhi, has pronounced that the cars, even though fall within capital goods, but sale of used cars is not subject to VAT under Delhi VAT Act, by virtue of section 6(3) of ibid.
