Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


ABCI Infrastructure P. Ltd. v ACIT (2023) 154 taxmann.com 397 ( /104 ITR 95 (Guwahati). (Trib)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Additional depreciation permissible on new plant or machinery or plant acquired or installed: [S. 32(1)(iia)]

Dy.CIT v. PTC India Financial Services Ltd. (2023) 103 ITR 15 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Generation of power-Depreciation on windmill allowable-Own funds-No disallowance can be made.[S. 14A,R.8D].

Dy. CIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2023] 105 ITR 24(SN) (Ahd (Trib)

S. 32 : Depreciation on property held for charitable purposes-Depreciation is to be allowed at the rate prescribed for ‘plant and machinery’. [S. 11]

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2023) 103 ITR 67 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Initial assessment year-If depreciation is allowed in the initial year, the claim cannot be disturbed in the subsequent years.

Muwahhid Educational Foundation v. CIT(A) (2023) 103 ITR 26 (SN) (Bang) (Trib)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Income wrongly shown under the head income from other sources instead of business income-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer. [S. 10(23C) (iii)(ad), 28(i), 56]

Addl.CIT v. Quippo Oil & Gas Infrastructure Ltd. (Delhi) 201 ITD 47(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 32: Depreciation —Oil drilling rigs-Entitled to a higher rate of depreciation. [R. 5]

Nalini Mahajan (Mrs.) v. ACIT (2023) 201 ITD 328 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 28(va) : Business income-Cash or kind-Under an agreement-Non-compete fees-Capital or revenue-Non-compete fees received for the period prior to AY 20217-18 are to be treated as capital receipts and not to be charged under S. 28(va). [S.4]

Charuben Jitendrarai Mehta and Bimal Jitendra Mehta v .ITO (2023) 103 ITR 29 (SN)(Ahd)(Trib) Bimal Jitendra Mehta v .ITO (2023) 103 ITR 29 (SN)(Ahd)(Trib)

S. 28(i) : Business loss-Survey-Client code modification-Information from Investigating agency-Loss in share trading-Misuse of client code modification to book losses to evade tax-Failure of the assessee to establish that he was not involved in Client Code Modification-Disallowance of loss is justified. [S.133A, 148]

Wieden+Kennedy India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023)101 ITR 63 (SN.) (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 28(i) : Business loss-Business expenditure-Money embezzled by director-CIT(A) accepted loss but denied deduction for want of details-AO to verify recovery and allow balance of loss.[S. 37(1)]

ITO v.Champalal Gopiram Agarwal (2023)101 ITR 22 (SN.)(Ahd) (Trib)

S. 28(i): Business loss-Purchase and sale of shares-Scripts manipulated by third parties-No adverse findings against assessee-Assessee made transactions in good faith-Loss not bogus-Loss allowed.