These appeals are filed challenging the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in ITA Nos. 120/08 and 119/08 pertaining to the assessment years 2002- 03 and 2001- 02. For the assessment years in question, the assessee had made deduction of payments said to have been made to doctors towards MRI Commission, CT Scan and USG Commission, Pathology Collection Commission and CT Commission National Hospital.
Assessee education-trust could claim depreciation on assets acquired for purpose of carrying out charitable activities and could also carry forward deficit of earlier years and set it off against income of current year.
The PIO stated that the PF contribution of employers are getting credited in someone else’s account instead of their respective PF account and consequently the appellant alleged that his PF money was sent to some other account and someone else’s PF money has been received in his account.
Talaq by a Muslim husband to his wife cannot be made in a manner which may infringe her fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of part III of the Constitution.
Loss suffered by the assessee on the sale of foreign is quantified at a figure of Rs. 51,6,108/-. The only question that remains is to determine the nature of loss. In view of the categoric finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that has attained finality, to the effect that the foreign cars were utilised in the business of the assessee, the loss arising out of their sale would be liable to be categorised as a business loss.
These cross appeals by the Revenue and by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-4,Chenaai dated 8-2-2016.
High Court held that under Expenditure Tax Act 1987 chargeable expenditure would be incurred only upon raising of a composite bill upon conclusion of hotel stay and not earlier.
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-4, Chennai dated 19-8-2016 pertaining to assessment year 2012-13. 2. The only grievance in this appeal of assessee is non-granting of exemption under section 54 of the Act in respect of sale of the residential property.
Where Assessing Officer issued two notices for imposition of penalty namely, one u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and second u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAA in cases where search u/s 132 of the Act has been initiated, then such notices issued by AO are untenable in law.
Gotanagar Truck Terminus is a plant and not building, for the purpose of claiming depreciation under Section 32 read with Section 43 of the IT Act. Consequently the assessee is held entitled to depreciation at the rate of 25% as prescribed for plant and not at 10%, as applicable for building.
