https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462661 ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee on three issues. First, regarding TDS deduction where the assessee failed to deduct surcharge along with TDS u/s 195, the tribunal held that section 40(a)(ia) does not provide for disallowance due to short deduction of tax, directing deletion of the disallowance. Second, on depreciation of leasehold improvements, the tribunal allowed depreciation as the expenditure qualified as building and furniture fixtures under section 32. Third, concerning addition u/s 28(iv) for cessation of liability, the tribunal deleted the addition as the loan waiver occurred in a different assessment year (2015-16) than the one under consideration (2010-11). en-us Thu, 03 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jul 2025 18:56:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462661 ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee on three issues. First, regarding TDS deduction where the assessee failed to deduct surcharge along with TDS u/s 195, the tribunal held that section 40(a)(ia) does not provide for disallowance due to short deduction of tax, directing deletion of the disallowance. Second, on depreciation of leasehold improvements, the tribunal allowed depreciation as the expenditure qualified as building and furniture fixtures under section 32. Third, concerning addition u/s 28(iv) for cessation of liability, the tribunal deleted the addition as the loan waiver occurred in a different assessment year (2015-16) than the one under consideration (2010-11). Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 03 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462661