Client acquisition cost paid by the appellant was towards acquiring an intangible asset and therefore eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act @ 25%.
Provisions of section 35(2AB) of the Act, with relevant rules makes it mandatory for the assessee company to file its application for approval of its in house R&D before the Secretary, DSIR, Government of India.
Impugning legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 26-5-2005 passed by the Board of Revenue by which the Board of Revenue has affirmed the order of the Commissioner setting aside the sale made by the original holders in favour of the petitioners and vesting the land in favour of the Government finding that the sale made by the original holders of the land in favour of the petitioners is in violation of the provisions contained in Section 165(7)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code of 1959’), the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
Where an assessee sells an inherited capital asset, the capital gain is computed with reference to the period of holding and cost of acquisition incurred by the previous owner.
Since no incriminating material was unearthed by AO during the course of search operation under section 132, therefore, no addition could be made during the relevant assessment year under section 153A by reopening the assessment on the matter which was examined earlier during original assessment.
In the present case, the ld.AO has granted depreciation at the rate of 15% without examining relevant provisions. It appears that his finding is based upon his experience and past impression. He was of the opinion that once Board has not granted higher rate of depreciation to cars, which are put in the business of hiring, or in public transportation, then how a partner, who used motor car for the purpose of business can be granted at a such rate.
Bombay High Court held that Supply of Reasons Recorded for Making Reassessment is Necessary Otherwise the Income Escaping Assessment shall be Void. The Assessing Officer(AO) is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the AO is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.
Section 54E of Income Tax Act,1961 does Not Make Any Distinction Between Depreciable Asset And Non-Depreciable Asset And, Therefore, The Exemption Available to the Depreciable Asset Under Section 54E Cannot Be Denied By Referring to the Fiction Created Under Section 50
Delhi HC held that a Chartered Accountant while doing concurrent audit is expected to check the transactions falling within the scope of audit in depth. Thus, non-checking of the same would be gross negligence on his part while performing professional duties.Accordingly, he is liable to face the charge of professional misconduct under clause 7 of the First Schedule of the CA Act, 1949.
The assessee did not benchmark the royalty payment separately. On enquiry by the TPO, it relied on RBI approval given in 1995 and also on the fact that the assessee earned a gross profit of 41.6%. TPO applied Press Note 9 (2000 series) and restricted it to 1% on the plea that the payment was for use of trademark without transfer of technology.
