Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Mechanical approval under search assessment law vitiates assessments when sanction lacks application of mind; retrospective curative provision cannot ...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Depreciation on glow sign boards and oxygen gas cylinders was rejected by the Assessing Officer, holding that the transaction on the last day of the accounting year cannot constitute business, and glow sign boards were advertising material, not plant. The ITAT held that sale proceeds of an asset on which deduction u/s 32(1)(ii) was claimed and allowed are required to be taxed as short-term capital gain u/s 50. The Supreme Court decision in Nectar Beverages case clarified that bottles and crates purchased before 31.03.1995 did not form part of the block of assets, and profits on their sale were not taxable as balancing charge u/s 41(1) or Section 50. However, for bottles and crates purchased after 01.04.1995, due to deletion of proviso to Section 31(1)(ii), such assets formed part of the block of assets and were exigible to capital gains tax u/s 50. The question of law was answered in favor of the assessee, holding that the Tribunal was incorrect in ruling that sale proceeds of an asset on which deduction u/s 32(1)(ii) was claimed and allowed are required to be taxed as short-term capital gain u/s 50.
Depreciation on glow sign boards and oxygen gas cylinders was rejected by the Assessing Officer, holding that the transaction on the last day of the accounting year cannot constitute business, and glow sign boards were advertising material, not plant. The ITAT held that sale proceeds of an asset on which deduction u/s 32(1)(ii) was claimed and allowed are required to be taxed as short-term capital gain u/s 50. The Supreme Court decision in Nectar Beverages case clarified that bottles and crates purchased before 31.03.1995 did not form part of the block of assets, and profits on their sale were not taxable as balancing charge u/s 41(1) or Section 50. However, for bottles and crates purchased after 01.04.1995, due to deletion of proviso to Section 31(1)(ii), such assets formed part of the block of assets and were exigible to capital gains tax u/s 50. The question of law was answered in favor of the assessee, holding that the Tribunal was incorrect in ruling that sale proceeds of an asset on which deduction u/s 32(1)(ii) was claimed and allowed are required to be taxed as short-term capital gain u/s 50.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
