Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that goodwill arising from slump sale of a going concern is a depreciable intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii...
Income Tax : Analysis of depreciation rates under the Income-tax Act (WDV method) from AY 2003-04 onwards and the useful lives specified under ...
Income Tax : Learn key provisions of depreciation under Section 32, including eligibility, ownership, usage conditions, asset types, and applic...
Income Tax : Learn how small businesses in India can optimize tax benefits through strategic structuring, presumptive taxation, deductions, MSM...
Income Tax : Depreciation is statutory deduction that allows businesses to set off cost of their tangible & intangible assets over their useful...
Company Law : Key Features of Fixed Asset Management Tool with Depreciation Calculator for Companies ♦ Line wise SLM and WDV Depreciation as p...
Income Tax : Addressing the concerns raised by Agriculture Produce Market Committees (APMCs), it has been decided not to levy the 2% TDS on cas...
Income Tax : The proviso to section 32 provides that the aggregate deduction, in respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furn...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that the amendment excluding goodwill from depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) applies prospectively from 01.04.2...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation was allowable for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s challenge to depreciation claims on leased assets after the Bombay High Court held tha...
Income Tax : The Chennai ITAT held that transfer pricing benchmarking cannot ignore extraordinary business circumstances arising from the shutd...
Income Tax : Even though the assessee had no business operations, claims based on disclosed assets and records were held bona fide. The Tribuna...
Income Tax : CBDT inserts new Income Tax Rule 8AC -Computation of short term capital gains and written down value under section 50 where deprec...
Income Tax : Income-tax (9th Amendment) Rules, 2019 – Additional depreciation on motor cars and motor vehicles shall be allowed in certai...
Income Tax : A reading of the agreement between STL and the assessee clarifies that a specific amount, i.e., Rs.9 Crores was paid by the assess...
Income Tax : Notification No. 43/2014-Income Tax S.O. 2399(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 295 read with Section 32 of the...
Goods and Services Tax : In view of this situation, it is necessary that the procedure for the issuing of such certificates should be standardized. Such ce...
CIT(A) followed the earlier order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in part and not in toto. He was of the view that interest and salary to the partners be allowed but not interest to third parties and the depreciation was to be allowed as claimed in the original return because the claim made in the revised return could not be substantiated. However, he has brought nothing on record as to how and in what manner the claim in the revised return was not substantiated particularly when the then learned CIT(A) vide order dt. 30th March, 2007 accepted the filing of revised return and the said order on the issue of acceptance of revised return
While making assessment of any returns any deduction is sought for it is the duty of the revenue official to examine not only the account but also substantive right of claiming deduction under the Act on the facts and circumstances of this case. It is not a case that the said assets and properties do not belong to the appellant, therefore depreciation in any assets and properties is a regular phenomenon and deduction on this account is allowable under Section 32 automatically.
The Ld DR argued that the Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed the exemption u/s 10B of the Act as the assessee had not filed prescribed audit report and had got software developed from outside. He further argued that assessee had not filed certified copies of invoices.
Where the assessee has written off the value of assets in the books of assessee as obsolete, can it still be include the value of said machinery in the block of assets and claim depreciation thereon. In the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Bharat Aluminium Co., Ltd., the Court held that in order to be entitled to claim depreciation asset has to be owned by the assessee and it has to be used for the purpose of business or profession, but the expression used for the purpose of business, would apply for block of assets and not any specific building, machinery, plant or furniture in the said block of assets, as the individual assets loose identity after becoming inseparable part of block of assets.
Section 32 of the Act indeed entitles an assessee, who is the owner of a property, to depreciation. As we have already held, the arrangement between the lessor and the assessee was, in effect, an agreement of sale of the property by the lessor to the assessee. The assessee is, therefore, the owner of the property having acquired the same on 29th March, 1982, itself and, in any event, by 30th March, 1982.
According to Explanation 10 and proviso to sub-section (1) of section 43, the subsidy amount shall be deducted in the actual cost of the asset of the assessee. Thus, the contention of the assessee that the subsidy received towards the power generation plant would not be reduced from the actual cost of the assets was not correct.
Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mir Mohammed Ali [1964] 53 ITR 165 had considered the meaning of the word ‘machinery’ and pointed out that the word is not a technical term and in the absence of any definition under the Act, ordinary meaning would prevail. Indeed rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules treats aero-engines separately from aircraft, but this cannot be used to interpret the clauses in the Act that what was purchased and installed was machinery and after installation, a wider meaning has to be given to the said term.
The only other issue in this appeal is against the deletion of addition of foreign travel expenses. The facts of this ground are that the assessee incurred foreign travelling expenses to the tune of Rs. 23.50 lakh. The A.O. disallowed a sum of Rs. 3 lakh for the reason that the journeys undertaken were not in connection with the business. The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing that all the places visited by the assessee were in connection with the business. No material has been brought on record to controvert this finding of the learned CIT(A). We, therefore, uphold the impugned order to this extent. This ground is not allowed.
The assessee has not claimed depreciation on goodwill it acquired commercial rights to sell products under the trade name and paid consideration in dispute for acquiring marketing and territorial rights to sell through dealers and distributors i.e. the network created by the seller for sale in India. Under the agreement. It become entitled to use of infrastructure developed by the seller. Rights were acquired since 1.4.1998 and these rights have all along been treated as an asset entitled to depreciation and depreciation was actually allowed in the past.
It is not disputed before us that basement and ground floor were fully owned by the assessee and used for the purpose of business by the assessee. This was accepted by the department in the AY 1998-99 as per details available on record. Once, the assessee is the owner of the asset and put the assessee for the purpose of business during the relevant FY, then the depreciation has to be allowed as per the details.
