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
A perusal of the provisions of section 80IA(4) of the Act shows that in the explanation ‘infrastructure facility’ has been specified to mean a road including a toll road, a bridge or a rail system. Admittedly, the assessee is doing the business of development of railway tracks and bridges thereof as also roads.
In the return of income, the assessee had claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act. During the course of assessment, the assessee disclosed that apart from property purchased at Kodaikanal for Rs. 1,14,88,000/-
Merely because a claim (per the return of income) is a legal claim, or has a legal aspect to it – which would be in each case – the same by itself cannot be a cause for non levy of penalty in every case, as where there is no valid basis for the same (i.e., the legal claim).
