The very fact that balances were shown under sundry debts itself went to prove that same had emanated out of sales of assessee and hence, income relatable thereto in the form of sales and services had been duly offered to tax in the earlier years in accordance with section 36(2) and therefore, disallowance made towards bad debts was not justified.
Where assessee made no bifurcation of land and building and claimed depreciation on entire amount, therefore the case was remanded back to AO for bifurcating consideration into land & building and depreciation was to be allowed only on building portion.
Tarun Jalali Vs Dy. DIT (ITAT Delhi) sub-section 4 of section 54F prescribes appropriation of sale consideration of original asset towards provision of new asset made within one year before the date of transfer of original asset, two years from the date of transfer or construction of new in-house property, within three years from the […]
Moreover, it has to be kept in mind by the AO that merely because nomenclature of expense is given as ‘Labour Charges Paid’ does not conclusively determine the character and nature of the expense claimed.
The present Misc. Application has been moved by the applicant – assessee pleading that though the Tribunal vide order dated 20.12.2017 had stayed the recovery of the balance amount to be recovered by the Department from the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10,
Mumbai International Airport : Upfront fees paid to the Airports Authority of India (AAI) is a commercial right entitled to depreciation @ 25% relating to intangible assets
The present appeal challenges the Order-in-Appeal No.8/2010 dated 24.02.2010. The demand covered the period 2004-05 to 2006-07. The appellant was engaged in providing Construction Service and Commercial or Industrial Construction service
This appeal filed by the assessee directed against the Ld. Principal of Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Kolkata for the assessment year 2012-13, wherein he has revised the order passed u/s 143(3) by the Assessing officer on 24.02.2015 by exercising his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) on 8thMarch, 2017.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT (A) erred in upholding the disallowance of loss/ expenditure of Rs. 20892603/- suffered/ incurred by the appellant as a result of encashment of bank guarantee furnished to Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) as security for the due and punctual discharge of obligations under the Concession Agreement.
All the three appeals are arising out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and as such, are being disposed of by a common order.
