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>Appellate Tribunal upholds disallowance of depreciation on immovable property and salary expenditure</h1> <h3>Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Sama Versus Income Tax Officer</h3> Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Sama Versus Income Tax Officer - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance of depreciation on immovable property.2. Disallowance of salary expenditure.Issue 1: Disallowance of Depreciation on Immovable Property:The appellant claimed depreciation on an immovable property purchased for Rs.5,30,570, which included land and building. The Assessing Officer (AO) allowed depreciation only on the value of the building, disallowing the balance claim. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The appellant argued that since the purchase was for both land and building without specific amounts allocated, depreciation should be allowed on the entire purchase consideration. However, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that where possible, the cost should be reasonably allocated between building and land for depreciation purposes. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that depreciation is for the building as a wasting asset, not for the land, which is a permanent asset. The Tribunal upheld the AO's allocation of the cost between land and building, allowing depreciation only on the building's value. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal on this issue.Issue 2: Disallowance of Salary Expenditure:The appellant claimed an expenditure of Rs.5,64,000 on salaries, but the AO disallowed Rs.1,38,000 due to unsigned vouchers for three employees. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The appellant contended that the salaries were paid, and the lack of signatures on vouchers was an oversight. However, the Tribunal noted that no evidence was produced to prove payment to the three employees in question. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the unsigned vouchers. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs.1,38,000 on salary expenditure. Therefore, the appellant's appeal on this issue was dismissed.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar upheld the disallowance of depreciation on the immovable property and the disallowance of salary expenditure, as decided by the CIT(A) and the AO. The Tribunal provided a detailed analysis based on legal principles and precedents to support its decision on each issue, ultimately dismissing the appellant's appeal.
TaxTMI 