Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT held that, under S.32 read with S.43(6)(c) and Rule 5, depreciation is governed by the "block of assets" concept and the individual identity of a depreciable asset is extinguished once it forms part of the block. In the case of Assessee X, the motor car was part of the "Motor Cars" block (15%), and the sale consideration of Rs. 5,60,000 had already been reduced from the block while computing depreciation in the return. ITAT held that no separate taxable profit arises on sale of an individual asset within the block and that taxing the book profit of Rs. 4,83,894 amounted to impermissible double taxation. As the AO cited no enabling provision and CIT(A) gave no cogent reasoning, the addition was deleted. Appeal allowed in favour of Assessee X.
ITAT held that, under S.32 read with S.43(6)(c) and Rule 5, depreciation is governed by the "block of assets" concept and the individual identity of a depreciable asset is extinguished once it forms part of the block. In the case of Assessee X, the motor car was part of the "Motor Cars" block (15%), and the sale consideration of Rs. 5,60,000 had already been reduced from the block while computing depreciation in the return. ITAT held that no separate taxable profit arises on sale of an individual asset within the block and that taxing the book profit of Rs. 4,83,894 amounted to impermissible double taxation. As the AO cited no enabling provision and CIT(A) gave no cogent reasoning, the addition was deleted. Appeal allowed in favour of Assessee X.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.