Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
ITAT held that the right to collect toll is an intangible asset, so depreciation at 25% and consequential additional depreciation were allowable. It also upheld reduction of actual cost by the NHAI subsidy under Explanation 10 to section 43(1), disallowing excess depreciation, and sustained rejection of the resurfacing expense provision as contingent and not scientifically estimated. Capitalisation of negative grant liability was disallowed, with depreciation on that amount also rejected. The assessee's alternative claim for enhanced deduction under section 80IA on additions arising from the same eligible infrastructure activity was allowed. Interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D was to be recomputed as directed. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted because disallowance of a claim does not by itself prove inaccurate particulars.
ITAT held that the right to collect toll is an intangible asset, so depreciation at 25% and consequential additional depreciation were allowable. It also upheld reduction of actual cost by the NHAI subsidy under Explanation 10 to section 43(1), disallowing excess depreciation, and sustained rejection of the resurfacing expense provision as contingent and not scientifically estimated. Capitalisation of negative grant liability was disallowed, with depreciation on that amount also rejected. The assessee's alternative claim for enhanced deduction under section 80IA on additions arising from the same eligible infrastructure activity was allowed. Interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D was to be recomputed as directed. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted because disallowance of a claim does not by itself prove inaccurate particulars.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
