Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The assessee, an individual sole proprietor, claimed depreciation on a car registered in her husband's name but funded by her business. While the assessee may be treated as the owner satisfying the first condition u/s 32, she failed to provide evidence like logbooks or travel details to prove the car was used for business purposes as required by the second condition. Despite being allowed to claim motor car expenses u/s 37, depreciation u/s 32 was denied as the assessee could not substantiate the business usage of the car. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled against the assessee's claim for depreciation.
The assessee, an individual sole proprietor, claimed depreciation on a car registered in her husband's name but funded by her business. While the assessee may be treated as the owner satisfying the first condition u/s 32, she failed to provide evidence like logbooks or travel details to prove the car was used for business purposes as required by the second condition. Despite being allowed to claim motor car expenses u/s 37, depreciation u/s 32 was denied as the assessee could not substantiate the business usage of the car. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled against the assessee's claim for depreciation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.