TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether depreciation at 40% was admissible on vehicles given on lease under a hire purchase agreement. (ii) Whether interest under section 244A(2) could be denied on the ground of delay in furnishing TDS certificates.
Issue (i): Whether depreciation at 40% was admissible on vehicles given on lease under a hire purchase agreement.
Analysis: The question had already been answered against the Revenue in an earlier decision of the Court. The present Bench followed that decision.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether interest under section 244A(2) could be denied on the ground of delay in furnishing TDS certificates.
Analysis: The Tribunal had found that the delay in furnishing the TDS certificates was not attributable to the assessee and that the assessee had no control over the issuance of the certificates. On that factual basis, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
Conclusion: The issue was not accepted as giving rise to a substantial question of law and relief was not granted to the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The appeal did not succeed and the assessee retained the benefit of the Tribunal's order.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a substantial question of law has already been settled by binding precedent, and a factual finding shows that the assessee was not responsible for the delay complained of, no interference is warranted in appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
TaxTMI 
