<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (11) TMI 964 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178481</link>
    <description>Income disclosed during survey from the assessee-firm&#039;s only diamond-business source was treated as business income, so partners&#039; remuneration and interest under section 40(b) were allowable. Electricity expenses were also allowed because the premises were used for business and the charges were paid by the firm, even though the bills stood in third parties&#039; names. Depreciation on the enhanced value of assets disclosed during survey required verification of bills, ledger entries, bank statements and the precise disclosure allocation, so the matter was remanded for fresh examination. The addition for variation in closing stock of finished diamonds was sustained because the assessee did not substantiate the explanation that the difference was due to process loss or rejected stock.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 16:49:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=415566" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 964 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178481</link>
      <description>Income disclosed during survey from the assessee-firm&#039;s only diamond-business source was treated as business income, so partners&#039; remuneration and interest under section 40(b) were allowable. Electricity expenses were also allowed because the premises were used for business and the charges were paid by the firm, even though the bills stood in third parties&#039; names. Depreciation on the enhanced value of assets disclosed during survey required verification of bills, ledger entries, bank statements and the precise disclosure allocation, so the matter was remanded for fresh examination. The addition for variation in closing stock of finished diamonds was sustained because the assessee did not substantiate the explanation that the difference was due to process loss or rejected stock.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178481</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>