Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation claimed on Plant & Machinery to the extent of the External Commercial Borrowing (ECB) amount waived off during the previous year, invoking Sections 43(1) and 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. However, the Tribunal held that the waiver of loan on capital account cannot be taxed u/s 41(1), as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Mahindra & Mahindra. Since the assets were purchased in the relevant year, Section 43(1) is not applicable as the cost was not met by any other person. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Tata Iron & Steel Co., which held that the mode of loan repayment does not affect the actual cost of the asset acquired by the assessee for business purposes. The cost of an asset and the cost of raising funds are separate transactions. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation claimed on Plant & Machinery to the extent of the External Commercial Borrowing (ECB) amount waived off during the previous year, invoking Sections 43(1) and 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. However, the Tribunal held that the waiver of loan on capital account cannot be taxed u/s 41(1), as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Mahindra & Mahindra. Since the assets were purchased in the relevant year, Section 43(1) is not applicable as the cost was not met by any other person. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Tata Iron & Steel Co., which held that the mode of loan repayment does not affect the actual cost of the asset acquired by the assessee for business purposes. The cost of an asset and the cost of raising funds are separate transactions. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
