|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 383 Records
-
2012 (1) TMI 309
Deduction u/s 80IA - eligible business - Held that:- In Section 80IA(8) of the Act what is required to be ascertained is the market value of the goods transferred by the eligible business, when such transfer is by eligible business to another non eligible business of the same assessee and the consideration recorded in the accounts of the eligible business does not correspond to market value of such goods. Term “Market Value” is further explained in explanation to said subsection to mean in relation to any goods or services, price that such goods or services will ordinarily fetch in the open market. To our mind sum of ₹ 4.51 per unit of electricity only represented cost of electricity generation to the assessee and not the market value thereof. It is not in dispute that the GEB charged ₹ 5 per unit for supplying electricity to other industries including non eligible unit of the assessee itself.
Tribunal therefore, while adopting the said base figure and excluding excise duty therefrom to work out ₹ 4.90 as the market value of the electricity generated by the assessee, to our mind, committed no error. It can be easily seen that if the assessee were to supply such electricity or was allowed to do so in the open market, surely it would not fetch ₹ 4.51 per unit but ₹ 5 per unit as was being charged by GEB. Since the excise duty component thereof would not be retained by the assessee, Tribunal reduced the said figure by the nature of excise duty and came to the figure of ₹ 4.90 to ascertain the market value of electricity generated by the eligible unit and supplied to non eligible business of the assessee.
-
2012 (1) TMI 308
Treating the rent received from letting/renting of shops/offices in the commercial complex as well as from letting/renting of space on roof and space on walls for advertisement - ‘Income from business’ OR ‘Income from house property’ - denying deduction claimed under section 24(a) of the Act being 30% of annual value - Held that:- In the present case undisputedly the properties are not rented out temporarily or for a short period and, therefore, in our considered view, there was no reason to hold that this is a business income and not income from house property. Accordingly, we hold that AO and ld. CIT (A) were not justified in holding that income of the building was income from business and not from house property. Accordingly, we allow the ground of the assessee and the AO is directed to allow deduction as per provisions of law applicable under the head Income from house property.
-
2012 (1) TMI 307
Stay of judgement - the decision in the case of VVF LTD. & 1 Versus UNION OF INDIA & 1 [2010 (3) TMI 1191 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] sought to be stayed - Held that: - we direct that operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed till further orders, subject to the petitioners' releasing to the respondents 50% of the amount due to them in terms of the impugned judgment on the respondents' furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Commissioner, within four weeks of their furnishing the said surety - petition disposed off.
-
2012 (1) TMI 306
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to Deduction u/s 10B of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Allegation of Reconstruction or Splitting Up of Existing Business.
Summary:
Entitlement to Deduction u/s 10B of the IT Act, 1961:
The core issue was whether the assessee company, engaged in the manufacture and export of silk fabrics and yarns, was entitled to deduction u/s 10B for its Filati unit. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction, arguing that the Filati unit was not a separate entity but a reconstruction of the existing Seide unit, aimed at tax benefits. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) overturned this decision, stating that the Filati unit was a new and distinct industrial undertaking, not formed by splitting up or reconstructing the old unit. The CIT(A) emphasized that the issue of reconstruction should have been considered in the year of establishment, not in subsequent years.
Allegation of Reconstruction or Splitting Up of Existing Business:
The AO argued that the Filati unit was formed by transferring assets from the Seide unit and was thus a reconstruction of the existing business. The CIT(A) disagreed, citing that the Filati unit was established with substantial fresh capital and new machinery, and had obtained necessary approvals. The CIT(A) relied on judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Textile Machinery Corporation Limited v. CIT, which held that a new industrial undertaking must have a separate physical existence and identity as a viable unit. The CIT(A) concluded that the Filati unit was an expansion, not a reconstruction, and the AO's disallowance of the deduction u/s 10B was unjustified.
Judicial Precedents and Legal Interpretations:
The CIT(A) and the ITAT referenced several judicial rulings to support their conclusions. Notably, the Supreme Court's decision in Textile Machinery Corporation Limited v. CIT was cited to illustrate that a new unit with a separate identity and substantial new investments cannot be considered a reconstruction. Additionally, the Karnataka High Court's ruling in CIT v. Nippon Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. was referenced to argue that the eligibility for deduction should be determined in the initial year of formation, not in subsequent years.
Final Decision:
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the Filati unit was a distinct and viable industrial undertaking, not formed by splitting up or reconstructing the existing Seide unit. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the assessee was entitled to the deduction u/s 10B for the Filati unit.
-
2012 (1) TMI 305
Issues involved: Dispute over deletion of income treated as "Income from other sources" instead of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of M/s. Jay Kay Dee Industries Ltd. for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05.
Assessment Year 2003-04:
The appellant claimed capital gain on sale of shares, but the Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the transactions. The AO conducted inquiries and concluded that the transactions were not genuine, adding the sale proceeds to the appellant's income. The appellant provided evidence of purchase and sale transactions, including bills, contract notes, bank statements, and D-Mat account records. The CIT(A) held that the appellant had produced sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and the AO's decision was based on theoretical grounds without concrete evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the transactions were genuine based on the evidence provided by the appellant.
Assessment Year 2004-05:
Similar to the previous year, the AO considered the sale of shares as sham transactions and added the proceeds to the appellant's income. The appellant presented evidence of purchase and sale transactions, including bills, contract notes, and bank statements. The CIT(A) found that the appellant had provided substantial evidence to support the genuineness of the transactions, and the AO's conclusions lacked concrete proof. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the transactions were genuine based on the evidence presented by the appellant.
The Tribunal rejected the department's appeals for both assessment years, emphasizing that the appellant had provided comprehensive evidence to support the authenticity of the transactions, including purchase and sale documents, bank statements, and confirmation from the broker. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling in favor of the appellant for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05.
-
2012 (1) TMI 304
Composite penalty on partners - Whether the learned Tribunal committed error in setting aside the penalties imposed upon the responsible persons, under Section 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962 & Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, specially when all the said persons had admitted their office(s) during the course of investigation? - Held that: - a composite penalty stands imposed on the partners under the provisions of two different Acts, without any demarcations, we are constrained to set aside the same on the above ground - reliance was placed in the case of COMMISSIONER, C. EX. & CUSTOMS, SURAT – II Versus RG. AGARWAL [2008 (9) TMI 146 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where authorities are not clear as to whether the penalty is to be levied for violation of which provision, and therefore the penalty was set aside - penalty set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (1) TMI 303
Issues involved: Appeal against orders of Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-V, Chennai for impugned assessment year; dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution by CIT(Appeals).
Summary:
The appellant challenged the orders dated 31.10.2011 of Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-V, Chennai, alleging that its request for adjournment was overlooked leading to dismissal of the appeals for non-prosecution. The appellant had cited the seizure of records by CB-CID, Department of Tamil Nadu Police as the reason for seeking an adjournment.
Upon hearing the contentions, it was noted that the CIT(Appeals) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or non-appearance. The procedure prescribed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates that the CIT(Appeals) must deal with the case on merits in accordance with the law. As the CIT(Appeals) did not address the adjournment application filed by the appellant, the matter was deemed to be remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration for both years. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside, and the appellant was to be given a fair opportunity to present its case.
Consequently, the appeals of the assessee for both years were allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in the open court after the conclusion of the hearing on 18th January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 302
Contributions/donations received by the assessee - income of the assessee u/s 2(24)(iva) - Held that:- Only ‘a benefit or perquisite’ in kind can be treated as income. Donations in the form of cash cannot be treated as a ‘benefit or perquisite’. Therefore as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee, the donations received by the assessee do not become income chargeable to tax. The issue of representative assessee will come only when the income is chargeable to tax. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A).
The contributions are not chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee. There is no direction by the CIT(A) to the AO to take any action on the basis of said observations. In fact, we find that the said observations are in favour of the assessee herein. In view of the same, we do not see any substance in the Cross-objection and they are also dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 301
Issues Involved:
The main issues in the judgment are the proprietorship of M/s. Maruti Enterprises, the validity of Cenvat credit availed, and the imposition of penalty under Rule 13(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Proprietorship of M/s. Maruti Enterprises:
The appellant contested that Shri K.K. Gupta was not the proprietor of M/s. Maruti Enterprises, providing evidence such as bank account opening forms and registration documents. However, statements from authorized signatories and the transfer of funds between accounts indicated otherwise, leading to the conclusion that Shri Kishan Kachurulal Gupta and Shri Krishanakumar Kachurulal Gupta are the same person and the proprietor of M/s. Maruti Enterprises.
Validity of Cenvat Credit:
The investigation revealed paper transactions and invoices from non-existent firms, with no actual movement of goods or value addition. The appellant failed to provide any evidence contradicting these findings, indicating the admission of such fraudulent transactions.
Imposition of Penalty:
The adjudicating authority found that the appellant had fraudulently obtained Central Excise registration and misdeclared facts to evade duty payment. Citing legal precedents, it was determined that the appellant had knowingly committed fraud by availing Cenvat credit without verifying the genuineness of documents, leading to the imposition of penalty under Rule 13(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
In conclusion, the appeal filed by the appellant was rejected, upholding the Order-in-Original that held Shri Krishanakumar Kachurulal Gupta liable to pay interest and penalty for fraudulently availing Cenvat credit.
-
2012 (1) TMI 300
Issues involved: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of differential Customs duty; non-compliance with export obligations.
Summary:
Issue 1: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of differential Customs duty
The Stay Petition was filed for waiver of pre-deposit of an amount confirmed as differential Customs duty payable on imported inputs against advance licences, with unfulfilled export obligations. The first appellate authority rejected the appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. The Tribunal found the issue arguable, noting the appellant's failure to fulfill export obligations committed to the Government of India while importing duty-free inputs. The appellant was directed to deposit &8377;1.50 crores within six weeks and report compliance, allowing the use of available Cenvat credit and cash for the balance amount. Upon compliance, the first appellate authority would restore and dispose of the appeal following principles of natural justice.
Issue 2: Non-compliance with export obligations
The appellant's non-compliance with export obligations, despite importing duty-free inputs against advance licences, led to the rejection of the appeal by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal imposed a condition for the appellant to deposit a specified amount within a set timeframe to proceed with the appeal process. Compliance with this condition would result in the restoration and disposal of the appeal by the first appellate authority, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
Conclusion:
The Stay Petition and the appeal were disposed of by way of remand, subject to the condition of depositing the specified amount within the stipulated timeframe. Compliance with this condition would enable the restoration and subsequent disposal of the appeal by the first appellate authority, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements.
-
2012 (1) TMI 299
Issues involved: Application of 'principle of mutuality' in respect of receipt for treatment of industrial effluent for AY 2004-05.
Summary:
Issue 1: Application of 'principle of mutuality'
The appeal by the assessee challenges the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2004-05, focusing on whether the 'principle of mutuality' applies to the receipt for treatment of industrial effluent. The Tribunal noted a similar issue for AY 2005-06, where the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had decided the claim of deduction u/s 80IA but did not adjudicate on the principle of mutuality. The Tribunal remanded the issue of mutuality back to the Assessing Officer for proper consideration and adjudication in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal considered various arguments and legal positions regarding the deduction u/s 80IA, emphasizing that the relief is restricted to enterprises owned by a company or consortium of companies. The Assessing Officer rejected the deduction claimed by the assessee under u/s 80IA, stating that the enterprise must meet specific qualifications as per the statute. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision on the deduction u/s 80IA, confirming the disallowance made. However, both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not address the issue of the principle of mutuality raised by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider and decide on the principle of mutuality in the case.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes and remanded the issue of the principle of mutuality back to the Assessing Officer for proper consideration and adjudication in accordance with the law.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 11th day of January 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 298
Bogus Purchases - Estimation of Income - AO observed that certain sundry creditors are not genuine. Further, he has drawn an inference that the assessee had made purchase in the open market by paying cash and created bogus bills in the name of the nonexistent parties. AO disallowed the amount. A.R. vehemently argued that the assessee had made genuine purchases and therefore the entire amount cannot be added to his income.
HELD THAT:- The AO has also rightly come to a conclusion that the books of accounts of the assessee are not correct and are incomplete in the sense that the same do not reflect the actual state of affairs of the assessee and therefore liable to be rejected u/s 145(3). The AO's action is therefore sustained, and the addition is confirmed.
Since the AO himself has not doubted the genuineness of the purchase but only had doubted the bills to be bogus/inflated, following the ratio of the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [1996 (1) TMI 144 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C], 12.5% of the purchases may be added to the income of the assessee.
Ground of Assessee - partly allowed.
Unexplained Cash Expenses- AO observed that the assessee had claimed motor car and telephone expenses, but he was not able to produce any documents to establish his claim of expenditure only for the purpose of business - HELD THAT:- Assessee has not submitted any materials to establish the genuineness of the expenditure, therefore, additions are confirmed with regard to motor car expenses, depreciation claimed on vehicles and telephone expenses.
Decision against Assessee.
-
2012 (1) TMI 297
The judgment addresses whether respondents can claim credit for service tax paid on GTA services for transporting goods. The Commissioner considered the buyers' premises as the place of removal. The appeal was disposed of based on previous rulings allowing credit for outward transportation service tax. The Revenue's appeal was rejected as the issue was settled by previous Tribunal decisions.
-
2012 (1) TMI 296
Issues involved:
1. Disallowance on account of delay of payment of TDS u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Restriction of disallowance on car expenses, car depreciation, and telephone charges at 10%.
Issue 1: Disallowance on account of delay of payment of TDS u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appeal by the assessee challenges the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance due to delayed payment of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for transport payments. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance citing the amendment by the Finance Act, 2010 as not prospective. The assessee contended that the issue is in their favor based on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in a similar case. The Tribunal, in line with the decisions of other benches, allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the retrospective application of the amendment in section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010. The High Court also confirmed this view, dismissing the appeal against the assessee.
Issue 2: Restriction of disallowance on car expenses, car depreciation, and telephone charges at 10%:
The assessee raised additional grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance on car expenses, car depreciation, and telephone charges at 10%. The Tribunal confirmed the restriction on car expenses and telephone charges at 10% due to personal use but deleted the disallowance on depreciation as it cannot be solely attributed to personal use. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed on this issue.
In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the assessee regarding the disallowance on account of delayed TDS payment and partially allowing the appeal concerning the restriction on certain expenses.
-
2012 (1) TMI 295
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) on the grounds of concealing income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Issue 1:
The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty imposed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income tax, Cir. 8(3), Mumbai u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Details:
- The appellant claimed deduction for charges paid to Registrar of Companies for increasing share capital, stamp duty, etc., based on advice received.
- The appellant argued that being a sick company with significant losses, the claimed deduction was legally allowable.
- The appellant contended that making a legal claim based on advice received should not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
Issue 2:
The Appellate Tribunal considered the appellant's submissions regarding the claimed expenses and the restructuring of loans, leading to the conclusion that the penalty was not justified.
Details:
- The AO disallowed certain expenses claimed by the appellant, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c).
- The appellant argued that the expenses were treated as revenue expenditure based on advice received and genuine belief in their allowability.
- The Appellate Tribunal found that the claimed expenses were not for tax advantage but due to a bona fide belief in their allowability as revenue expenditure.
- Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was not warranted.
Issue 3:
The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the expenses claimed by the appellant and the applicability of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in light of the Supreme Court's decision.
Details:
- The Tribunal noted that the expenses claimed were not for tax advantage but based on a genuine belief in their allowability as revenue expenditure.
- Referring to the Supreme Court's decision, the Tribunal emphasized that incorrect claims do not necessarily amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
- Based on the legal principles, the Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified and consequently deleted the same.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals).
-
2012 (1) TMI 294
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the confirmation of addition u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, the computation of disallowance of expenses, and the allocation of expenses between taxable and exempt income.
Confirmation of Addition u/s 14A:
The appellant contested the addition of &8377; 2,66,554 u/s 14A, arguing that no expenses were incurred to earn the income and that some expenses were statutorily required for maintaining the company. The AO computed the disallowance based on Rule 8D, resulting in the addition. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, citing the applicability of Rule 8D for the assessment year. The appellant claimed that no expenditure was incurred in earning the dividend income, and thus, no disallowance should be made. The Tribunal held that the assessing officer must first examine the claim of the assessee with reference to the accounts before resorting to Rule 8D. Since the claim of nil expenditure was not properly examined, the disallowance exceeding the total expenditure was incorrect. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's contention that no expenditure should have been disallowed, and the appeal was allowed.
Restriction of Disallowance u/s 14A:
The appellant also argued that the disallowance u/s 14A should be restricted to &8377; 2,00,849, which was the total expenses claimed, as disallowance cannot exceed the total expenses. However, the AO and CIT(A) did not accept this argument. The Tribunal, after considering the statutory provisions and the claim of the assessee, concluded that the disallowance exceeding the total expenditure was incorrect. The Tribunal held that the disallowance could not have exceeded the actual expenditure claimed, and since no expenditure was found to be disallowable, the appeal was allowed.
Allocation of Total Expenses:
The appellant further contended that the total expenses should be proportionately allocated between taxable and exempt income, as not all expenses were incurred for earning exempt income. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessing officer must examine the claim of the assessee before invoking Rule 8D. Since the claim of nil expenditure was not properly addressed, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's argument that no expenditure should have been disallowed, and accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 293
Issues Involved:
1. Unexplained cash credit.
2. Bogus IMD gift.
3. Low family withdrawals.
Summary:
Issue 1: Unexplained Cash Credit
The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 28,60,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained cash credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) restricted this addition to Rs. 2,92,800. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings, noting that the assessee had declared the purchase of shares for Rs. 25,80,200, which was paid by cheques and reflected in the return of income filed prior to the search. The Tribunal concluded that the net amount of Rs. 2,92,800 represented the unaccounted income not offered for taxation by the assessee, thus dismissing the Revenue's ground.
Issue 2: Bogus IMD Gift
The Revenue contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 5,91,74,176 made by the AO regarding a gift of IMDs, which the AO deemed in-genuine and taxable u/s 68 of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, which was based on the fact that the assessee provided substantial documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the gift, including affidavits from the donors and corroborative statements. The Tribunal also noted that the provisions of s. 56(2)(v) of the Act, which apply to sums of money, did not cover gifts in kind such as IMDs. The Tribunal cited previous decisions supporting this interpretation and dismissed the Revenue's grounds.
Issue 3: Low Family Withdrawals
The Revenue objected to the deletion of an addition of Rs. 5,00,000 made on account of low personal withdrawals. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2005-06, where it was held that no further addition was warranted. For the current assessment year, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the total withdrawals of Rs. 9,32,791 were adequate, and the Tribunal upheld this finding, dismissing the Revenue's ground.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decisions on all grounds. The order was pronounced in open Court on 31st January 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 292
Issues Involved:
Computation of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act, Addition relating to suppressed stock and turnover, Addition made u/s 43B of the Act, Deduction u/s 80HHC on DEPB receipts.
Computation of Deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act:
The assessee, engaged in cashew processing and exporting, claimed deduction u/s 80HHC on export profit. Dispute arose over indirect costs for trading goods. Assessing officer's adjustment was contested based on consistent past practices and legal precedents. Tribunal directed re-examination considering expenses exclusively for processed exports.
Addition on Account of Suppressed Stock and Turnover:
Ld CIT(A) enhanced addition for suppressed stock and turnover. Delay in furnishing explanations led to finalization without considering the assessee's submissions. Tribunal ordered re-examination by Ld CIT(A) to ensure natural justice.
Disallowance of Employer's Contribution of PF/ESI u/s 43B:
Assessee contended timely payment before return filing date based on legal rulings. Tribunal directed assessing officer to verify payment dates and decide afresh in line with Supreme Court decisions.
Eligibility of Deduction u/s 80HHC on DEPB Receipts:
Assessee sought admission of this ground as a legal issue without fresh facts. Tribunal admitted the ground for examination in light of relevant legal decisions and remanded the issue for fresh assessment.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing re-examination and adherence to legal principles in resolving the issues raised.
-
2012 (1) TMI 291
... ...
... ... ..... Das, Adv. for the Petitioners. Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Jatin Zaveri ,Adv. for the Respondents. ORDER Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 290
Loss on sale of repossessed assets u/s 36(1) (vii) r/w Section 36 (2) - Whether loss on sale of repossessed assets is a capital loss or it is a bad debt allowable u/s 36(1) (vii) R/W Section 36 (2) – Held that:- HC order confirmed [ 2011 (5) TMI 1028 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as held that the amount advanced by the assessee during the course of business could not be recovered would be treated as bad debt allowable under Section 36 (2) of the Act. Relied on A.W.Figgies case [2001 (9) TMI 46 - CALCUTTA High Court].
Depreciation on computers and peripherals at the rate of 60% is allowable
............
|
9911796707
