These appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-2, Jodhpur for assessment year 2008-09 vide order dated 19-11-2015; assessment year 2010-11 vide order dated 20-11-2015
ACIT Vs Metallizing Equipment Co. (P) Ltd. (ITAT Jodhpur) In Hero Cycles Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (1999) 63 TTJ (Chd) 665. Tribunal, Chandigarh, has held that the expenditure on telephone installed at the residences of directors is not covered by section 38(2) and expenses in case of a company cannot be for non-business purposes and the […]
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Bikaner dated 20.05.2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13.
6. The ld. CIT(A) on consideration of the assessment order, assessee’s submissions and the case laws relied upon by the assessee, has held as under: The only dispute in the instant case is whether the interest paid by the assessee to the bank on loan availed for purchase of property could be allowed as deduction in computing the capital gains income.
A discretion has been conferred on the ITO U/s 69 of the Act to treat the source of investment as income of the assessee if the explanation offered by the assessee is not found satisfactory. However, the said discretion should be exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a particular case. when it is claimed that the assessee could not possibly have any source of income, the addition on his hand is not justified within the parameters of the Income Tax Act.
We have found that the G.P. rate in this year has been on lower side. However, the decrease in G.P. rate stands explained by the undeniable reasons that there is heavy increase in purchase price, freight cost and export cost.
Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income belatedly on 26/03/2010 showing taxable income of Rs. 6,03,414/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for short on 05/04/2010.
Section 132 contemplates existence of certain eventualities in the event of existence where of the competent authority should have reason to believe the existence of the circumstances mentioned in clause (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the Act
The agreement between the assessee and GAIL is a contract for sale of gas and not a works contract. VAT which is charged by the seller is on the composite price and not only on the price of the gas. The assessee is required to disclose the price of the gas and transmission charges separately in the same invoice. GAIL is a Government of India undertaking and regularly files its Sales Tax Returns declaring sale of gas inclusive of transmission charges. GAIL is regularly assessed to Income-tax and has been claiming credit for TDS and has also claimed credit for the A.Y. under consideration.
The depreciation u/s 32 is allowed on the actual cost of the assets. The term ‘actual cost’ has been defined in section 43(1) according to which, ‘actual cost’ means ‘the actual cost of the assets to the assessee reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority’. So, the only deduction permissible from the actual cost is the amount, which has been met by any other person or authority.
