ITAT was correct in law in allowing depreciation to the assessee on the actual cost of the germplasm seeds and the actual cost incurred by the assessee much before becoming an assessee can still be treated as an actual cost to the assessee when depreciation has to be claimed.
CIT vs. G. R. Shipping (Bombay High Court) :- The assessee, engaged in shipping business, owned a barge which was included in the block of assets. The barge met with an accident and sank on 6.3.2000 (AY 2000-01). As efforts to retrieve the barge were uneconomical, the barge was sold on as-is-where- is in May 2001 (AY 2002-03).
We are of the firm opinion that the present writ petition is liable to succeed with costs. The reasons which have been recorded seeking reopening of the assessment, and as reproduced above show that there is no application of mind by the Assessing Officer which can be said to be the mind of a reasonable person to arrive at a conclusion, which has been arrived at in view of the reasons recorded.
All these appeals have been preferred under Section 260A (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ”Act 1961′) by the Revenue as well as by the Assessee. It provides for filing of an appeal in the form of a memorandum of appeal within 120 days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the Assessee or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner. It is an admitted position that all these appeals have been preferred beyond the period of limitation as provided under the aforesaid Section and the appellants have filed applications for extensi
Section 115JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Minimum alternate tax – Assessment year 2000-01 – Assessee had created a reserve in assessment year 1986-87 by enhancing value of assets – Assessee had withdrawn Rs. 1.53 crores from said reserve and credited it to profit and loss account – In assessment year 2000-01 assessee-company claimed deduction of Rs. 1.53 crores from book profit for calculating adjusted book profit under section 115JA – Assessing Officer allowed assessee’s claim
The effect of omission of section 34 and Rule 5AA and consequential amendment in section 32 by omitting reference to section 34 makes it clear that one cannot taken support from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Mills, supra, after the amendment. Section 43(6) of the Act which defines the term “Written Down Value” reads as under :-
Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Export oriented undertaking – Assessment year 2003-04 – Assessee-company was engaged in business of contract research and in providing of laboratory facility to its parent company in USA – It had claimed exemption under section 10B – Assessing Officer observed that assessee was not manufacturing or exporting anything, as it was simply providing services of laboratory
Each of the sub-sections to section 41 deal with different and distinct topics and one cannot read recoupment under one sub-section into another; the depreciation recovered on sale of the capital asset was includible in the total income as balancing charge only under section 41(2); that concept was foreign to the scheme of section 41(1).
Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Appellate Tribunal – Powers of – Assessment year 1996-97 -Whether though Tribunal is not akin to a Court but functions discharged by it are similar to a Court, and, hence, in addition to its expressed statutory powers it has got inherent power to pass such orders as may be necessary for ends of justice – Held, yes –
In respect of AY 2000-01, the assessee filed a ROI. In the accompanying balance sheet it was disclosed that prior period expenditure of Rs. 5,41,850 was debited to the P&L A/c and that interest of Rs. 8,34,720 receivable from a particular party had not been accounted for as income. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) in which he did not make any addition on account
