Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Tribunal held that Assessing Officer's disallowance of depreciation u/s 32 was incorrect as no specific asset was singled out for testing its individual usage. CIT(A) failed to consider assessee's legal contentions. Matter remanded to Assessing Officer to allow assessee opportunity to prove entitlement to claim depreciation despite no business activity. Regarding addition of unexplained share application money u/s 68, assessee's contention that no fresh credits were received during the year was not examined. CIT(A) confirmed addition without verifying whether any sum was actually received. Matter remanded to Assessing Officer to allow assessee to substantiate no credits on account of share application money or membership fees and decide issue afresh. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Tribunal held that Assessing Officer's disallowance of depreciation u/s 32 was incorrect as no specific asset was singled out for testing its individual usage. CIT(A) failed to consider assessee's legal contentions. Matter remanded to Assessing Officer to allow assessee opportunity to prove entitlement to claim depreciation despite no business activity. Regarding addition of unexplained share application money u/s 68, assessee's contention that no fresh credits were received during the year was not examined. CIT(A) confirmed addition without verifying whether any sum was actually received. Matter remanded to Assessing Officer to allow assessee to substantiate no credits on account of share application money or membership fees and decide issue afresh. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
