Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2019 (12) TMI 207 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        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

        Tribunal directs reassessment of depreciation claims for assessment years 2012-2015 The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeals, directing the Assessing Officer to recalculate the disallowance of depreciation for the assessment ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Tribunal directs reassessment of depreciation claims for assessment years 2012-2015

                            The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeals, directing the Assessing Officer to recalculate the disallowance of depreciation for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to refute the findings regarding inflated capital asset costs and excessive depreciation claims. While agreeing with the disallowance, the Tribunal identified computation discrepancies and remanded the issue to the AO for accurate recalculations, stressing the need for the assessee to have a fair chance to present its case.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Legality of the CIT(A)'s order.
                            2. Deletion of the addition made on account of disallowance of excessive depreciation.
                            3. Allegation of inflated cost of construction by contractors leading to excessive depreciation claims.

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Legality of the CIT(A)'s Order:
                            The Revenue challenged the legality of the CIT(A)'s orders dated 07/10/2015, 03/11/2015, and 10/11/2016 for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15, respectively. The CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance of excessive depreciation claimed by the assessee, which was contested by the Revenue on the grounds that the contractors inflated the cost of construction, resulting in an inflated value of capital assets and excessive depreciation claims.

                            2. Deletion of the Addition Made on Account of Disallowance of Excessive Depreciation:
                            The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed depreciation of Rs. 2,10,53,292/- for the assessment year 2012-13, alleging that the contractors (M/s Jubilant Developers and Management Services Pvt. Ltd and M/s OSN Infrastructure and Project Ltd.) admitted to claiming bogus expenditure without incurring actual expenses. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, stating that there was no evidence to establish that the assessee authorized its personnel to manage or supervise the affairs of the subcontractors and that the cost of assets accounted for by the assessee was not more than the expenditure incurred. The CIT(A) also noted discrepancies in the AO's computation methods and held that no disallowance on account of excess depreciation was warranted.

                            3. Allegation of Inflated Cost of Construction by Contractors Leading to Excessive Depreciation Claims:
                            The AO's findings were based on seized documents indicating that the assessee colluded with contractors to inflate the carrying cost of its capital assets through booking inflated bills. The AO noted that employees of the assessee acted as authorized signatories for the contractors, suggesting collusion. The AO's detailed findings in the cases of OSN Infrastructure & Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Jubilant Developers and Management Services Pvt. Ltd. highlighted that these contractors admitted to inflating expenses and receiving cash back from subcontractors, which was not reflected in the actual cost of construction. The AO concluded that the assessee's capitalized cost of building was inflated, leading to excessive depreciation claims.

                            Tribunal's Decision:
                            The Tribunal examined the facts and found that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to rebut the AO's findings. The Tribunal agreed with the AO that the capital asset corresponding to the expenditure not actually incurred did not come into existence, and thus, the assessee was not entitled to depreciation on the inflated portion of the cost of the capital asset. The Tribunal, however, noted discrepancies in the computation of the quantum of depreciation and restored the issue to the AO for correct computation, directing that the assessee be given an adequate opportunity of being heard.

                            Conclusion:
                            The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeals partly for statistical purposes, directing the AO to recompute the disallowance of depreciation based on correct figures for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee should be given an adequate opportunity to present its case during the recomputation process.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found