https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56639 ITAT held that an inadvertent additional ground could be admitted because it related to the main controversy and was covered by the general grounds already raised. It also held that the amount set apart under section 10A of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam was part of sale proceeds applied for the assessee's own business purposes, not income diverted by overriding title; the addition was therefore taxable. On reassessment confined to escaped income, the assessee could not introduce a fresh claim for depreciation on railway siding and similar assets omitted from the original assessment. The appeal thus failed in substance. en-us Fri, 13 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Dec 2010 10:44:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56639 ITAT held that an inadvertent additional ground could be admitted because it related to the main controversy and was covered by the general grounds already raised. It also held that the amount set apart under section 10A of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam was part of sale proceeds applied for the assessee's own business purposes, not income diverted by overriding title; the addition was therefore taxable. On reassessment confined to escaped income, the assessee could not introduce a fresh claim for depreciation on railway siding and similar assets omitted from the original assessment. The appeal thus failed in substance. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56639