|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1569 Records
-
2024 (5) TMI 1510
Rejection of petitioner's representation for correction of date of birth, in the mark-sheet of High School Examination, 2020 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner was issued mark-sheet of her High School Examination, 2020 and immediately she represented before the Respondent No. 5 i.e. Principal of the College and the District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj submitted his report on 15.10.2020. This Court further finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the order dated 10.01.2022 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 03 of 2020 [2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER] whereby relaxation of the period 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022 has been given for the purposes of counting the period of limitation for filing different legal proceedings therefore, for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the petitioner, for the first time, represented before the authorities on 28.12.2022 for correction in her date of birth the said representation is also within the period of three years limitation provided under Regulation-7 of the regulation framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
The order dated 28.2.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 3 cannot be allowed to sustain - Matter is remitted to Respondent No. 3 to reconsider the matter for correction of date of birth afresh - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1509
Delay in preferring the appeal before the CIT(A) - Addition u/s 43B in intimation issued u/s 143(1) - delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) from the date of intimation issued u/s 143(1) up to the date of the FAO (since the assessee has already preferred appeal as against the FAO before ITAT) which was dismissed by ITAT - HELD THAT:- As mentioned earlier, assessee was under bonafide belief that the addition u/s 43B made in the intimation u/s 143(1) would be discussed / mentioned in the scrutiny assessment since notice u/s 143(2) was already issued on 05.09.2018 i.e., prior to the date of intimation (the date of intimation is 01.03.2019).
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition v/s Mst . Katiji & Others[1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] has interpreted the term “sufficient cause” in the context of condoning the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Hon’ble Apex Court held the expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice, that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts.
In the instant case, the Revenue does not plead that there was malafide intention on the part of the assessee in preferring the appeal with a delay. The assessee does not stand to gain by preferring appeal with a delay. When technicalities are pitted against substantial justice, the former must give way to the latter. There is no reason not to accept the explanation offered by the assessee that it is only due to bonafide mistake that the appeal has not been preferred against the intimation issued against section 143(1) of the Act at the first instance.
Revenue has not pleaded any rights to have been crystalized due to efflux of time. By condoning the delay, the highest that could happen is that a cause could be decided on merits which would go in the interest of justice. In view of this matter, we are of the opinion that delay in preferring the appeal before the CIT(A) is to be condoned. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1508
Maintainability of section 7 application - initiation of Corporate Insolvency process - a related petition already admitted - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal has already passed an order admitting the said Petition and directing commencement of CIRP qua the CD M/s Kaur Sain Spinners Limited and appointed Mr. Nipan Bansal IP having Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00039/2017-18/10100 Email ID: [email protected] as IRP to conduct CIRP in respect of the CD M/s Kaur Sain Spinners Limited. Once, the CIRP against qua a particular company stands commenced in terms of the provision of Section 5(12) of IBC, 2016, it is open to all the Creditors to stake their claim before the IRP in the proceedings already commenced.
Application disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1507
Maintainability of application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) - application within time limit or not - existence of a financial debt and default - all sanction letters and loan agreements allegedly have signatures of Sh. Sushil Mittal, who passed away on 28.04.2020 due to COVID - differences in the claimed amount and the amount awarded by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) affect the insolvency proceedings or not.
Existence of debt and default or not - HELD THAT:- The Applicant has annexed various documents to prove the existence of debt and default on behalf of the Corporate Debtor Company.
Time limitation - HELD THAT:- The date of NPA is 31.08.2017, as the date of default for the purpose of calculating limitation - the present application filed by the Applicant Bank is well within the limitation period.
All sanction letters and loan agreements allegedly have signatures of Sh. Sushil Mittal, who passed away on 28.04.2020 due to COVID - HELD THAT:- There are no force in the argument of the Respondent that the authenticity of the documents of the present case against the Corporate Debtor Company becomes questionable merely because the signing member has expired. As per the documents on record, the loan has been availed by the Corporate Debtor Company, which is in existence.
Difference in the amount of Rs. 193,41,71,512.52 claimed by the ATpplicant herein and the amount of award for Rs. 49,44,65,248/- by DRT - HELD THAT:- The Applicant has clarified in its rebuttal that the award by DRT is in relation is in relation to a different case being OA No. 3000/2018 titled as “Central Bank of India VS M/s Kaur Sain Spinners Ltd and Others”. Further, in any case, the amount of default is much above than the minimum threshold limit applicable to the present case.
Conclsuion - The Applicant Bank has been able to successfully establish the debt and default beyond doubt on the part of the Respondent-Corporate Debtor in repayment of its financial debt. The present Application being complete and the Applicant having established the default on the part of the Respondent in payment of the Financial Debt for an amount being above the minimum threshold limit, the present Application is admitted in terms of Section 7(5) of the IBC and accordingly, the Moratorium is declared in terms of Section 14 of the Code.
Application admitted.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1506
Framing of question of law - Whether the word “and” as appearing in CTI 8517 (iv) is to be read in a disjunctive manner and thus be viewed as referring to separate products? - HELD THAT:- List for hearing on 18.07.2024.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1505
Default in deposit of TDS - On salary for the concerned years tax has been duly deducted but the same has not been deposited by the employer - HELD THAT:- Since the deduction of TDS from the salaries of the petitioners is not disputed, we find no justification for the demands being shown as outstanding against the writ petitioners.
We, accordingly, dispose of these three writ petitions.
We additionally call upon the respondents to ensure that all demands with respect to TDS as currently reflected against the petitioners on the Income Tax Business Application portal are consequently deleted.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1503
Addition u/s 68 - Assessee argued said entries cannot be said to be the income for the previous year as it was wrongfully entered and reversed immediately on the next day - HELD THAT:- We cannot lose sight of the fact that once amount is credited in the books of accounts and the same returned on the next day, realising that too only on 31st March i.e. last day of the assessment year, would be including of the said amount as part of the income of that year. Returning back the same on the next day would not result in the income of the previous year being reduced.
If we allow such entries, one cannot lose sight that the assessees may make fictitious entries and return the same on the next day for taking tax benefits. There may be cases where the entries in the books of accounts may not be reflected in the bank account as the entries may be made in cash or in cheque which may not be ultimately encashed. We, therefore, answer question no. 1 in favour of the revenue.
Income tax is on real income ascertained as per the provisions of the Act and not on hypothetical income - It is now trite law that the income to be assessed and ascertained under the provisions of the Act is the accrued income and not the actual income which the assessee may have acquired in a financial year. Therefore, the actual income of the assessee which accrues to him during the financial year, if there is an entry of any amount in the books of accounts as on 31st March, the same would be included as income of the assessee, even if he/ she may not have encashed the cheque on that day. The answer to question no. 2 is, therefore, in favour of the revenue.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1502
Invalid approval granted u/s 153D - whether the competent authority has granted approval u/s 153D of the Act in an inappropriate manner, dehors the settled position of law? - HELD THAT:- Approval u/s 153D cannot be accorded in a casual or mechanical manner. Rather, the said exercise involves due application of mind which must be reflected in the order of approval passed by the concerned statutory authority.
Approval u/s 153D of the Act has been granted without due application of mind in the present case. Admittedly, the ITAT notes that the ACIT has approved the draft assessment order without verifying the record which was made available before the said authority. It is further seen that the approval in the present case was accorded on the same day when it was sent to the concerned authority. It is also noteworthy that 35 draft assessment orders were approved by the Additional CIT in one go on the said day.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1501
Refund of service tax paid on ocean freight in terms of Section 142 (3) of CGST Act, 2017 - refund was rejected on the ground that the amount of service tax paid on the ocean freight is after 01.07.2017 when cenvat credit was not admissible - HELD THAT:- Even though the appellant have paid the service tax after 01.07.2017 but the same pertains to the period prior to 01.07.2017 when the service tax paid on ocean freight was admissible as cenvat credit. Since the appellant is unable to take the credit after 01.07.2017, the mechanism of refund of such paid amount is provided under Section 142(3) of CGST Ac, 2017 and on the very same issue that if the amount paid after 01.07.217 whether the same is admissible for cenvat credit for the period prior to 01.07.2017 has been settled in various judgments cited by the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant is prima facie eligible for refund of cenvat credit on ocean freight.
The impugned order is set aside - Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1500
Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The judgment could not be pronounced on account of sufficient time has been lapsed - The matter requires further clarification.
List for further hearing before appropriate Court in due course.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1499
Addition on account of interest on unsecured loans - HELD THAT:- Even during the course of assessment proceedings the notices were issued to all the entities u/s 133(6) of the Act which were responded by the parties by filing / furnishing all the documents as desired by the AO.
Therefore we find merit in the contention of the assessee when the unsecured loans were not doubted for being nongenuine in the earlier assessment years how the corresponding interest on the said loans could be added u/s 68 - CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1498
Legislative competence of the State Legislature and contrary to Section 19 of CAA 2016 - Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 (CAA) - Demand / Recovery of VAT after implementation of GST - Scope of saving clause under the GST Act - right or a vested right or accrued right to proceed to reopen assessments for enforcing the legal obligation/liability arising before 16.09.2016 or not - Section 174(2) of the KSGST Act - HELD THAT:- Interim order to continue.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1497
Deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) - CIT (A) deleted the addition on account of bad and doubtful debts - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in the case of Arvind Sahakari Bank Ltd [2015 (9) TMI 1768 - ITAT NAGPUR] - The issue is also covered by the decision of Bhandara District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd [2016 (2) TMI 1387 - ITAT NAGPUR] for the assessment year 2010-11, wherein the Tribunal has decided this issue against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Addition towards accrued interest on non-performing - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of CIT v/s Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. [2015 (1) TMI 1218 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Arvind Sahakari Bank Ltd [2015 (9) TMI 1768 - ITAT NAGPUR] decided in favour of the assessee wherein as expounded that the assessee is correct in not recognizing interest accrued on the NP - respectfully following the same, we decline to interfere with the well-reasoned and cogent order passed by the learned CIT (A) and dismiss the ground no.2, raised by the Revenue.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1496
Levy of penalty u/s. 271G - 2% earned on total value of Specified Domestic Transaction - details were not filed within 30 days - HELD THAT:- If the details for computation of ALP of SDT has been accepted by the ld. TPO and ALP computed by the assessee has been accepted, we find no reason for levy of penalty u/s. 271G. CIT (A) has simply confirmed the penalty on the ground that there was no explanation filed by the assessee and there is no reasonable cause for such failure.
If the ld. TPO had duly considered the explanation and the details submitted as noted above in the TPO’s order, then penalty cannot be levied u/s. 271G. Accordingly, the same is deleted. Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1495
Addition u/s 68 - share capital treated as unexplained cash credit - as argued allotment of share by the assessee was under barter system - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee has not received cash or cheque for sale of its shares. It has transacted the shares through barter system. This aspect has been considered in its recent judgment [2024 (2) TMI 1482 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] deleting the addition u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit in the form of share capital and share premium only on the ground that no cash or cheque was actually received by the respondent assessee and the purchase of share assets and allotment of share by the assessee was under barter system.
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - CIT(Appeals) has deleted this disallowance by observing that there is no exempt income in this year - HELD THAT:- This aspect is squarely covered by the recent decision of m/s. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd [2022 (7) TMI 1093 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that if no exempt income is being earned by the assessee, then, no disallowance is to be made. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1494
Validity of the notice issued u/s 153C - no valid approval granted u/s 153D - HELD THAT:- We find that the approval has been granted not separately for each assessment year for the assessee whereas the provision of Section 153D of the Act stipulates conditions that no order of assessment or reassessment shall be made by an Assessment Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 153A of the Act or the assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section 153B of the Act except the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.
It further appears from the approval dated 08.06.2018 that the same was a common and composite order whereas the Addl. Commissioner is required to verify and approve that each of assessment year is complied with as well as procedural laid down under the Act. Such fact clearly reveals non-application of mind on the part of the Learned Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-7, New Delhi.
Thus granting approval for all the common years instead of approval u/s 153B for each assessment year separately de horse the rules. The said approval is found to have been given in a mechanical and routine manner. We find that the order issuing authority has not discharged its statutory duties cast upon him even by assigning cogent reasons in respect of the issues involved in the matter.
Thus granting approval in the absence of due application of independent mind to the material on record for each assessment year in respect of the assessee’s case separately vitiates the entire proceedings; the same is found to be arbitrary and erroneous and therefore, liable to be quashed.
We quash the entire proceeding initiated u/s 153C r.w.s 153A of the Act in the absence of a valid approval granted ACIT. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1493
TDS u/s 195 - addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - failure to deduct tax at source on the payment of sale commission to non-resident - HELD THAT:- We find that assessee has paid sales commission expenses to non-resident who does not have any business connection in India and does not file return of income in India. The expenses were paid in connection with export of the goods and services.
Assessee contended that the Income Tax Department has accepted the nature of the assessee’s expenditure, incurred by him, which do not require deduction of TDS, hence addition made by the Assessing Officer may be deleted. We find merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the assessee and noted that the nonresident to whom the payment was made, does not have any permanent establishment in India or business connection in India. The similar payments were made by the assessee in the subsequent assessment years, that is, assessment year 2013-14 and assessment year 2018-19, and the Department has accepted the same, therefore based on this factual position, we delete the addition made by the AO.
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - failure to deduct tax at source on the payment of sale promotion expenses to non-resident as per provision of section 195 - HELD THAT:- We note that assessee has taken part in business fare held in USA and paid to non-resident for providing services in the form of stall on rent and other allied expenses of business at USA and these services were provided to the assessee, outside India, by a non-resident, who does not have a business connection in India.
We note that in the case of DML Exim Private Ltd, [2020 (8) TMI 13 - ITAT RAJKOT] held that where commission was paid by assessee to foreign parties, for rendering services abroad for soliciting customers for its export business activities, assessee was not liable for short direction of tax at source and therefore disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was not permissible.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1492
Seeking provisional release of goods - Multifunctional Devices - whether the goods are freely importable or there is restriction or prohibition in the import of these goods? - HELD THAT:- It cannot be disputed that the issue involved in this appeal which is squarely covered by the decision passed by this court in THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. P.K. COPIER SOLUTIONS & ORS. [2024 (4) TMI 1203 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] by which the appeal filed by the department was allowed.
The department is directed to file affidavit-inopposition within a period of three weeks from date; reply, if any, be filed within three weeks thereafter - Let these matters be listed before the appropriate Single Bench after Vacation.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1491
Seeking grant of bail - Conspiracy concerning illegal appointments of teachers in primary schools - illegal recruitment process for appointment of primary teachers in the year 2016 - illegal gratification for wrongful appointments - HELD THAT:- Office bearers of the Board had entered into a conspiracy and devised an ingenious strategem to ensure appointment of favoured candidates who were ready and willing to shell out illegal gratification. Deserving candidates were ignored. Petitioner played a vital role to set up a web of agents and sub agents who approached these underserving candidates and procured illegal gratification. To enable this criminal enterprise he floated a fake website of West Bengal Board of Primary Education titled www.wbtetresults.com. Therefore, petitioner and his agents and sub agents induced candidates to pay them illegal gratification for wrongful appointments.
It is surprising to note the investigating agency did not add offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the police report. Timely intervention by the trial Judge led to the addition of the offence under section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A deeper scrutiny of the profile of the allegations would show they disclose graver offences under section 7 read with 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in addition to section 7A of the said Act - In the present case the corruption has polluted the recruitments to primary schools. It is the fundamental duty of the State to provide free and compulsory education upto the age of 14 years. When this constitutional duty is polluted and devastated through the greed of public servants and their associates like the petitioner, gravity and magnitude of the crime must be seen through the prism of constitutional dereliction and not merely with reference to the quantum of punishment.
The petitioner is in custody for more than a year. It is strongly argued further investigation is in progress and there is little possibility of trial commencing in the near future. It is imperative under-trial detention ought not to be protracted unnecessarily lest it takes the character of a punitive one - In the present case, further detention is necessary to insulate the process of further investigation with regard to the nexus of the petitioner with the office bearers of the Board. It is also necessary to trace out the proceeds of crime which were rooted through the petitioner to other influential persons. Though it is argued petitioner has been striped off his official role in the political party, he continues to have overwhelming influence and his release on bail shall overawe various candidates and other individuals who are vital witnesses to prove the involvement of the petitioner in procuring illegal appointments. It is also relevant to note petitioner has been implicated in offences under PMLA and complaint has been filed against him.
This is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage - Prayer for bail rejected.
-
2024 (5) TMI 1490
Disallowance u/s 14A by invoking provisions contained in Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- It is admitted position that no exempt income earned by the Assessee during the relevant previous year. It has been contended by the Assesses that in absence of exempt income, disallowance under Section 14A of the Act was not warranted. We find merit in the aforesaid contention of the Assessee. In the absence of any exempt income arising in the relevant previous year, no occasion to make any disallowance under Section 14A of the Act can arise [Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (8) TMI 1490 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT].
In the case of the Assessee, for the Assessment Year 2008-09 [2023 (5) TMI 576 - ITAT MUMBAI] and 2009-2010 [2023 (2) TMI 1250 - ITAT MUMBAI] Tribunal had deleted disallowance under Section 14A of the Act as the Assessee did not earn any exempt income during the corresponding previous years. Disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A of the Act is deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.
Disallowance of interest expenses u/s 36(1)(iii) - HELD THAT:- It emerges that in identical facts and circumstances, vide common order for the Assessment Year 2006-07 [2023 (5) TMI 508 - ITAT MUMBAI], the Tribunal had decided identical issue in the favour of the Assessee and allowed deduction for interest on borrowed funds use for purchase of assets and capital work in progress. Addition deleted.
Disallowance of roaming charges made u/s 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT:- Tribunal in the case of the Assessee for the preceding Assessment Year 2009-10, which in-turn followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08, the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of roaming charges is deleted.
Disallowance of discount extended to pre-paid distributors u/s 40(a)(ia) deleted.
Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA - HELD THAT:- Tribunal in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2005-06 [2022 (12) TMI 28 - ITAT MUMBAI] decided the issue in favour of the Assessee holding that the Assessee had started providing telecommunication services after 01/04/1995 and claimed deduction for the first time in the Assessment Year 2005-06.
Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA on 'Other Income' - AO is directed to allow the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act in respect of Other Income and re-compute deduction under Section 80IA of the Act after including Other Income. Accordingly, Ground raised by the Assessee is allowed.
TP adjustment - AMP Expenditure - HELD THAT:- Where an assessee denies existence of international transaction in case of AMP Expenditure, as is the case in the present appeal, the onus would be on the Assessing Officer to bring out facts, circumstances, policy or conduct to support existence of an international transaction. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show or infer the existence of international transaction. We also note that in the subsequent assessment years (i.e. Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) no adverse inference was drawn and no transfer pricing adjustment has been made in relation to advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses incurred during the relevant previous years. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the transfer pricing addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect AMP Expenditure cannot be sustained and is, therefore, deleted.
TP adjustment - payment of brand royalty for obtaining the right to use of Vodafone trademark and trade name - HELD THAT:- The transaction entered into by the Assessee with its AE (i.e. RGL) is a controlled transaction. Therefore, we find merit in the contention advanced by the Learned Senior Counsel that RGL cannot be used as comparable under CUP Method to benchmark the royalty paid to VIML. We note that the Assessee has now placed on record note giving reasons for differential payments of royalty to VIML and RGL. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the present case we remand this issue back to the file of TPO/AO with the directions decide the issue of transfer pricing adjustment in relation to international transaction of royalty payments afresh after granting the Assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is directed to place before TPO/AO such agreements/documents on which the Assessee wishes to place reliance in support of its contentions.
TP adjustment in respect of the technology support charges - HELD THAT:- We set aside the transfer pricing addition made in respect of technology support charges with the directions to the AO/TPO to determine the ALP of the relevant transactions as per law and make transfer pricing adjustment, if any. Assessee is directed to furnish all the information and explanations in support of the claim that the payments are at arm’s length. The TPO/Assessing Officer would consider the same and adjudicate the issue after granting the Assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard.
TP adjustment pertaining to reimbursement of expenses - HELD THAT:- Assessee is granted another opportunity to substantiate its claim that the were incurred in relation to the employees deputed with the Assessee and that the same, having being recovered on cost to cost basis from the Assessee, were at arm’s length.Assessee is directed to furnish relevant documents/details to substantiate its claim. AO/TPO shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessee and shall decide the issue in accordance with law after taking into consideration the details/documents furnished by the Assessee and the directions issued by the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2008-09 [2023 (5) TMI 576 - ITAT MUMBAI].
Disallowance of penalty paid to Department of Telecommunications (‘DoT’) - HELD THAT:- DRP has placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vodafone East Limited [2015 (9) TMI 1358 - ITAT KOLKATA] and Vodafone Digilink Ltd. [2018 (6) TMI 1029 - ITAT DELHI] wherein in identical facts and circumstances disallowance made under Section of the Act of in respect of penalty paid to DoT was deleted by the Tribunal holding that penalty paid to DOT is for the breach of contractual obligation and hence is allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Act read with Explanation thereto. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the direction issued by the DRP.
Disallowance of depreciation on 3G Spectrum - Assessee paid charges for allotment of right to commercially utilize the 3G spectrum allotted to it for a period of 20 years in the telecom circle of Mumbai - HELD THAT:- We direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation upon the 3G spectrum charges capitalize by the Assessee under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Ground raised by the Assesee is allowed.
........
|
9911796707
