Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT-IV (ITAT Pune) Now, coming to the aspect of book profits which was considered by the Commissioner and the order of the Assessing Officer was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this regard, it may be pointed out that the case of assessee […]
Assessee is a partnership firm stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of tobacco products. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for assessment year 2007-08 on 31-10-2007 declaring total income of Rs. 15,20,628.
Where the assessee failed to specify manner in which undisclosed income was derived and also failed to deposit due taxes then the assessee failed to satisfy the conditions specified under section 271AAA(2) and hence, immunity from penalty was not available to assessee.
Asst. CIT Vs. Gurudatta Shikshan Sanstha (ITAT Pune) Ground raised by the Revenue revolves around the correctness in granting exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act in respect of the additions made under section 68 of the Act. Held by ITAT I find from the records that no action has been initiated by the assessing […]
Where reassessment proceedings were initiated on the directions from JCIT or CIT and AO had not carried out any independent exercise to examine fresh material to come to a conclusion that the assessment warrants reopening on account of escapement of income, the reassessment was bad in law.
Depreciation on right to collect toll being infrastructure and not on toll road, where cost incurred for development and construction of infrastructure facility was a right in nature of intangible asset falling within purview of section 32(1)(ii). Order of AO in amortizing expenditure over period of facility and allowing the same was reversed. AO was, thus, directed to allow claim of assessee vis-a-vis depreciation on intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii).
If intention of Parliament was to include HUF prior to the said date then the amendment would have been carried out in respect of section 54B as well along with section 54. Therefore, amended provisions of section 54B were not applicable retrospectively and assessee-HUF was not entitled to exemption for the year under consideration.
Where specific charge for the levy of penalty was not mentioned in the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) and there was vagueness in the recording of satisfaction, the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed.
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.
This amount represents difference between the amount payable as shown in the books of account under the sales tax deferral scheme of Government of Maharashtra, availed by the company and that paid under the Pre- payment scheme on the basis of Net Present value of the amount due, as pe
