Issue – Assessee in this appeal had sold a residential house at Film Nagar, Hyderabad, during the relevant previous year, for a sum of Rs. 6,50,00,000/-. After deducting indexed cost of acquisition, the long term capital gain came to Rs. 5,98,25,430/-.
Explore Zyg Pharma vs. DCIT case – Sales tax waiver taxability and provident fund delay. Learn about ITAT Mumbai’s decision on these income tax matters.
Assessing Officer ignored the very fact that there was a temporary lull in the business of the assessee and it was not a cessation of business of activity. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses incurred by the assessee for continuation of its business which deserve
In the grounds of appeal before the CIT(A) at ground No. 3 the assessee himself has submitted that the learned AO should have appreciated that during the previous year relevant to the AY 2008-09 the amount of Rs. 60 lakhs paid by the assessee company for deduction of Rs. 15 lakhs in question qualifies for inclusion under the head ‘intangible asset’ as provided u/s 32(1)(ii) and is entitled to a depreciation @ 25% on intangible assets. Hence, we direct the AO to allow depreciation on goodwill at 25% on the intangible assets and with respect to furniture and fittings depreciation to be allowed at 10% since they fall under block of assets as furniture and fittings. The assessee is directed to give bifurcation of good will and furniture and fittings.
This document was seized from the business premises of D. Nagarjuna Rao in course of action u/s 132 of the Act against him. In the impugned assessment order the AO has also observed that the said D. Nagarjuna Rao had admitted that entries in the seized documents were made by him in his own handwriting.
Issue – The facts relating to the two issues are stated in brief. The assessee is a Kerala State owned public limited company, engaged in the business of providing infrastructural facilities to industries. It runs an industrial park at Kakkanad, Kochi.
If the assessee is able to keep the six months’ limit from the date of transfer of capital asset, but, still able to place investment of Rs. 50 lakhs each in two different financial years, we cannot say that the restrictive proviso will limit the claim to Rs. 50 lakhs only.
Assessing the legitimacy of Rs. 10 lakh written off by Zebina Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Explore ITAT Delhi’s decision favoring the business expenditure claim.
No professional has any right to invoke the judicial machinery for his own interest without any reasons. If he does so it would amount to professional misconduct on the part of the professional. Moreover, to dispute the proceedings of the court
After considering the rival submissions and carefully gone through the affidavit filed by the assessee as well as the affidavit of Shri Sunil Hirawat, CA of the assessee, we note that the facts of the case do not suggest that the assessee has acted in a malafide manner
