Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Adjustment under s.143(1)(a) reducing depreciation on goods carriage vehicles from 30% to 15% was invalid because only arithmetical errors or incorrect claims apparent from the return can be adjusted, whereas the applicable depreciation rate is a debatable matter requiring examination beyond the limited, mechanical scope of processing. On merits, higher depreciation at 30% was allowable for goods carriage vehicles run on hire, including vehicles used in the assessee's transportation business for carrying goods on hire, consistent with settled law. Consequently, the disallowance/addition made while processing the return was directed to be deleted and the appeal was allowed. - ITAT
Adjustment under s.143(1)(a) reducing depreciation on goods carriage vehicles from 30% to 15% was invalid because only arithmetical errors or incorrect claims apparent from the return can be adjusted, whereas the applicable depreciation rate is a debatable matter requiring examination beyond the limited, mechanical scope of processing. On merits, higher depreciation at 30% was allowable for goods carriage vehicles run on hire, including vehicles used in the assessee's transportation business for carrying goods on hire, consistent with settled law. Consequently, the disallowance/addition made while processing the return was directed to be deleted and the appeal was allowed. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
