Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.