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>Depreciation Reassessment Ordered; Tribunal Clarifies Limitations in Limited Scrutiny Cases; Income Classification Upheld.</h1> <h3>RAJESH JAIN Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JIND</h3> RAJESH JAIN Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JIND - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance of depreciation by Assessing Officer.2. Classification of income from letting out storage space.3. Disallowance of certain expenses.4. Power of Assessing Officer in limited scrutiny cases.5. Power of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in limited scrutiny cases.Analysis:1. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of depreciation made by the assessee in respect of the plinth used for storage of food grains. The total income was computed at a higher amount due to this disallowance. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claim of depreciation, citing a relevant court decision. The Tribunal remitted the issue of depreciation back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction in limited scrutiny cases is confined to the claims specified in the notice.2. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the income from letting out the storage space should be assessed under the head 'income from other sources' and not under 'income from business' as claimed by the assessee. This decision was based on the categorization of the storage space as a plant, making the assessee eligible for depreciation under section 57(ii) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal upheld this classification and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the allowance of depreciation in accordance with the law.3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disallowed certain expenses claimed by the assessee, such as salary, general expenses, car expenses, telephone expenses, and interest on car loan. These disallowances were made despite the Assessing Officer initially allowing these expenses. The Tribunal did not delve into the specifics of these expenses but set aside the Commissioner's decision on these disallowances.4. The Tribunal emphasized the limited scope of the Assessing Officer's powers in cases of limited scrutiny. It referred to a CBDT circular clarifying that in limited scrutiny cases, the Assessing Officer is restricted to verifying the claims specified in the notice. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot make a full-fledged assessment beyond the specified claims in the notice.5. Regarding the powers of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in limited scrutiny cases, the Tribunal stated that these powers cannot exceed those of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal highlighted that the Commissioner's powers are co-terminus with the Assessing Officer's powers. Therefore, the Commissioner cannot enlarge their powers beyond those of the Assessing Officer in limited scrutiny cases. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the claim of depreciation in accordance with the law and set aside the Commissioner's decision on issues not covered in the limited scrutiny notice.
TaxTMI 