Business of the assessee is carried on in the leased property and any expenditure is incurred on the construction of any structure by way of renovation, extension or improvement, then, section 32 will apply and accordingly, the assessee can claim depreciation on the value spent on such improvement or changes in the structure.
This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act)challenges the order dated 28th June, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09.
Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case?
Whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act even when the assessee was not the owner of the property in question and was in possession thereof as a lessee during the year under consideration?
As HUF cannot be a registered shareholder in a company and hence could not have been both registered and beneficial shareholder, loan/advances received by HUF could be deemed as dividend within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act,
HC directed Registrar (Administration) of bench to immediately circulate instructions to all Print, Electronic and Media Houses not to publish the names of practitioners and individual judges as a part of news item unless it is so essentially required.
The fact in the instant case is that the assessee has submitted its return, which was assessed, but subsequently it was found that there is some suppression in submission of return so far as it relates to gross turn-over of the assessee and as such, reassessment order has been directed to be initiated under the provisions of Section 12(8) of the Act.
Application for termination of mandate of an Arbitrator under Section 14(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is maintainable before the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction i.e. the District Judge and not before the High Court.
In view of these glaring facts, the assessment of Smt. Jaya Agrawal and the fact that the relevant purchases for AY 2004-05 have been held to be genuine, we see no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting these additions. On the issues of Shri Chokshi, Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Goldstar Finvest Pvt. Ltd., a catena of judgments from ITAT, Mumbai and Ahmedabad is available in favour of the assessee which view also stands confirmed by Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Shri Mukesh Moralia.
Commnr.,Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Vs Sanket Communications Pvt. Ltd. (Orissa High Court) Heard Mr.P.Mohapatra, learned Standing counsel for the Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party. Petitioners have filed this application to review/modification of the order dated 15.12.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 21861 […]
