There are two appeals under consideration pertaining to two different assessees for the AY 2005-06. Since, the issues raised in these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, both these appeals are clubbed, heard combinedly and disposed of in this consolidated order.
As assessee was not the owner of toll road, but had been given the right to develop, maintain and operate the toll road and to further collect the toll for the specified period, then this right was an intangible asset falling under section 32(1)(ii) and expenditure on development, construction and maintenance of infrastructure facility as incurred by the assessee was not revenue in nature and therefore, could be amortized.
Supraja’s Sandy Lane Bar & Restaurant Vs. ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) As per 153C of Income Tax Act for invoking jurisdiction, there must be incriminating material found and seized during the course of search in form of money, bullion, jewellery or the evidences indicating the inflation of e expenditure or undisclosed investments or suppression of Income.etc. […]
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derives his income from salary and other sources. The assessee claiming himself as non-resident filed his return declaring total income at Rs. Nil. Under scrutiny, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued.
1. It is amply clear that in the case in hand the ACIT observed that the mechanical approval had to be accorded as there is hardly any time left for any discussion or consideration much less meaningful discussion including the fact that absolutely no time available for any further inquiry or investigation because of the […]
The assessee as well as the Revenue is in cross appeal against the impugned order dated 29/11/2013 of the First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. In the appeal of the assessee (ITA No.658/Mum/2014), the first ground raised pertains to confirming the reopening u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
In this appeal the only issue that is to be decided as to whether the CIT-A justified in holding that the purchase of sales tax exemption certificates is a revenue expenditure in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Amount of TDS was debited from the bank account of the assessee on the due date i.e. 7.10.2009 and the delay in deposit of such tax by a day was on account of system and connectivity issues at the bankers’ end, which were beyond the control of the assessee.
Since assessee had not claimed any expenditure in its computation of income, there was no scope for dis allowance under section 14A as dis allowance under the section can be made only when deduction of certain expenditure is claimed.
A reader should be able to come to his / her own conclusion by applying the legislative enactments and judicial pronouncements to the facts of the case. While re-producing any portion of legislative enactment or judicial pronouncement, it is para phrased and emphasis is supplied by way of underline.
