TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals partly allowed for assessee, Joint Venture claim remanded for fresh adjudication, depreciation disallowance set aside</h1> <h3>Joint Venture of MCL & MMCL (AOP) “Creative Castle” Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2)</h3> Joint Venture of MCL & MMCL (AOP) “Creative Castle” Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2) - TMI Issues:1. Rejection of claim to be assessed in the status of Joint Venture2. Disallowance of depreciation claimed by the appellant3. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act4. Levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the ActIssue 1: Rejection of claim to be assessed in the status of Joint VentureThe appellant challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2001-02, seeking to be assessed as a Joint Venture. The Hon'ble Tribunal in a previous case found that the income was assessed on a protective basis, and the appellant had valid reasons to be aggrieved by such an order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. In the current case, the Tribunal followed the previous decision and also restored the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties.Issue 2: Disallowance of depreciation claimed by the appellantThe Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation claimed by the appellant, leading to an addition of Rs.8,16,449. The appellant argued that the assets on which depreciation was claimed were used for business purposes, making them at least the beneficial owner eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal noted that this argument was not raised before the authorities below and decided to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The matter was restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for reevaluation after examining the contentions of the appellant.Issue 3: Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) of the ActThe Tribunal deemed the issue of penalty proceedings premature and did not require adjudication at that stage.Issue 4: Levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the ActThe ground related to the levy of interest was considered consequential and disposed of accordingly.In conclusion, the appeals by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal directing the matters to be reconsidered by the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the identified issues.
TaxTMI 