section 2(11) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 specifies as only two class of assets i.e., tangible and intangible assets and within these two classes of assets, assets having same rate of depreciation are prescribed and they fall within the same block.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 7-11-2014 of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXVIII, Delhi for the assessment year 2011-12. In this appeal, the assessee has also filed a stay petition seeking stay of the outstanding demand.
In this case the appellant is receiving the material on Freight Prepaid basis (C&F). The foreign shipping companies were charging only the incidental charges like Port charges, Container payment, Stationery charges, License fees, Stamp charges, Bank charges, De-stuffing charges etc.
Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Hedging forward contracts of foreign currency cannot be marked to market (MTM) on balance sheet date as already there is a underlying asset and there is no extra outgo for settlement of the forward contract other than already determined in the contract and thus there is no […]
Briefly the facts of the case as noted in the assessment order are that in this case assessment for A.Y. 2006-2007 has been reopened after recording satisfaction and obtaining approval of Addl. CIT, Range-25, New Delhi, under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act.
Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) Here in this case, qua the retail space, the assessee was not carrying on any systematic or organized activity of providing service to the occupiers of the shops, albeit other service charges pertaining to the common maintenance, event and advertising, parking fees, etc., has been offered […]
Deletion Of Penalty In Case Of Bonafide Belief Of An Assessee: Especially When The Action Of Assessee Is Supported By Factual Circumstances And A Decision- Section 271 (1)( c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with the penalty in respect of failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc.
If a claim made by the assessee has been allowed at one stage and later on has been disallowed, ostensibly, the assessee can said to have some bona fide belief for making such a claim.
In case of M/s. Deepak Agro Food (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with Sec. 29(8)(b) of the Act which is not having similar wordings like that of Sec. 154 (3) of the Act under which it is mandatory to issue notice. As per Section 154(3) of the Act amendment/rectification which has effect of enhancement of an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee shall not be made unless the authority concerned gives notice to the assessee of its intention to do so.
On the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer has erred in computing long term capital gain at Rs. 99,57,265/-. 2. That the Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong in not granting exemption under section 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act on the amount invested for the purchase of residential plot and deposits made under capital gain in the Bank.
