Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal Upholds Business Depreciation, Remands Income Issue</h1> <h3>Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-4, Baroda Versus Prakash Chemical Agencies (P.) Ltd.</h3> Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-4, Baroda Versus Prakash Chemical Agencies (P.) Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Higher depreciation on gas cylinders acquired through MOU.2. Depreciation on assets not actually put to use.3. Addition of undisclosed income based on TDS certificates.4. Alleged diversion of profit undercharging rent on cylinders leased to associate concern.5. Disallowance of vehicle expenses for personal use.6. Bad debts claim.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Higher Depreciation on Gas Cylinders Acquired Through MOU:The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow higher depreciation on gas cylinders acquired from an associate concern through an MOU. The AO contended that the assessee inflated the actual cost through revaluation, which is against the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. v. CIT. The AO restricted the depreciation claim based on the WDV from the previous firm. The CIT(A) found that the transaction was a legitimate business transfer under section 47(xiii) of the IT Act, and the actual cost should be considered for depreciation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the AO did not invoke Explanation-3 to section 43(1), which could have allowed adjustment of the actual cost.2. Depreciation on Assets Not Actually Put to Use:The AO disallowed full depreciation on gas cylinders, arguing they were not 'put to use' before 30/09/2003. The CIT(A) allowed full depreciation, citing that the cylinders were leased out from 27.09.2003, thus meeting the 'put to use' requirement for more than 180 days. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the lease commencement date was relevant for determining the usage period.3. Addition of Undisclosed Income Based on TDS Certificates:The AO added Rs. 16,12,749 as undisclosed income based on discrepancies between receipts in the profit and loss account and TDS certificates. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's reconciliation, which included prior period income and discount income. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument that the AO was not given a chance to rebut the new evidence and remanded the issue back to the AO for re-evaluation.4. Alleged Diversion of Profit Undercharging Rent on Cylinders Leased to Associate Concern:The AO alleged profit diversion by the assessee to its associate concern by undercharging rent on cylinders. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the associate concern was not a loss-making entity and the tax rates were identical. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the AO did not investigate the commercial reasons behind the rent charges and the business model of the assessee.5. Disallowance of Vehicle Expenses for Personal Use:The AO disallowed 10% of vehicle expenses, suspecting personal use by directors. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, following the precedent set by Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. v. CIT. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the lack of specific evidence of personal use.6. Bad Debts Claim:The AO disallowed the assessee's claim for bad debts amounting to Rs. 9,54,436, questioning the efforts made for recovery. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in T.R.F. Ltd. v. CIT, which clarified that writing off bad debts in the books is sufficient for claiming deduction.Separate Judgments:For A.Y. 2003-04 and 2005-06, the Tribunal followed the same reasoning as for A.Y. 2004-05 and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal's decisions were consistent across the assessment years, addressing the same issues with similar conclusions.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found