1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>High Court dismisses appeal on income tax assessment, finding no substantial questions of law.</h1> The High Court dismissed the appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2006-07. The Court found that the issues raised ... - Issues involved: Appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2006-07. Amended questions of law proposed regarding depreciation on capital assets, unexplained payment to Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, interest accrued on advance made to Haryana State Electricity Board.Depreciation on Capital Assets:The appeal questioned the justification of allowing depreciation on capital assets after the capital expenditure for their acquisition had already been allowed as 'application of income' for exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It also referred to the decision in Escorts India Ltd. case regarding double deductions on the same expenditure. The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds of potential double deduction.Unexplained Payment to HSAMB:The appeal raised concerns about the deletion of an addition made on account of unexplained payment to Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board. The Tribunal justified the deletion based on the requirement for the Market Committee to pay a percentage of its income to the Board, but the issue was whether the addition was deleted due to lack of proof of actual expenditure or admissibility of the expenditure.Interest Accrued on Advance to HSEB:The appeal contested the deletion of an addition made on account of interest accrued on an advance to the Haryana State Electricity Board. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not accept the assessee's claim of following a cash system of accounting. However, the Tribunal upheld the plea, emphasizing that no interest income had actually accrued to the assessee during the year. The Tribunal's decision was based on the cash system of accounting followed by the assessee and the lack of actual accrual of interest income.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the appeal after considering the arguments presented. The Court found that the questions regarding depreciation on capital assets, unexplained payment to HSAMB, and interest accrued on advance to HSEB were not substantial questions of law. The Tribunal's findings on the cash system of accounting followed by the assessee and the lack of actual accrual of interest income were upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
