<?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>Section 53A cannot confer ownership for depreciation; writ challenge also failed on natural justice and was sent to appeal.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100451</link>
    <description>Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act did not confer ownership for depreciation where there was no written and registered transfer instrument, so the assessee could not treat the properties as firm assets or claim depreciation on that basis. The assessment was also not vitiated by natural justice grounds because the show-cause process and repeated notices already covered the relevant factual basis, and the shift from unexplained investment to unexplained credit was treated as a consequence of the same inquiry. Having rejected the jurisdictional and procedural objections, the Court declined to examine the merits of the unexplained credit dispute in writ jurisdiction and relegated the assessee to the statutory appellate remedy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2026 08:37:37 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2026 08:37:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=905333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Section 53A cannot confer ownership for depreciation; writ challenge also failed on natural justice and was sent to appeal.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100451</link>
      <description>Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act did not confer ownership for depreciation where there was no written and registered transfer instrument, so the assessee could not treat the properties as firm assets or claim depreciation on that basis. The assessment was also not vitiated by natural justice grounds because the show-cause process and repeated notices already covered the relevant factual basis, and the shift from unexplained investment to unexplained credit was treated as a consequence of the same inquiry. Having rejected the jurisdictional and procedural objections, the Court declined to examine the merits of the unexplained credit dispute in writ jurisdiction and relegated the assessee to the statutory appellate remedy.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2026 08:37:37 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100451</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>