Saturday, January 10, 2015

[aaykarbhavan] Judgments and Infomration, I have received from S Krishnan several articles on Capital Gains and other subjects as many as 60 which will be ofrwarded to groups shortly. [3 Attachments]





PFA

Illegal Detention of Vehicle & Seizure of Goods under Transportation by VAT Authorities – High Court directs for payment of Damages from erring officials to be collected from their personal account to check the arbitrary exercise of power.

Bogus purchases: Merely because a party has admitted to indulging in sham/ accommodation transactions does not mean that all his transactions with the assessee should be treated as sham
It is not in dispute that the survey action was conducted on a third party. It is also not in dispute that the assessee had business relation with Moxdiam Group, like so many other parties. It is also a fact that there is not even a iota of evidence with the AO, to prove that the assessee did not have straight dealings with the Moxdiam Group. It is also a fact that, that the assessee entered each of its transaction in its primary books, comprising of ledger and stock register. From the order of the AO, the DR could not establish before us that the transaction as recorded in the books was sham. We cannot accept a bald statement made by the AO that any transaction/business done with a party would be sham, simply because the opposite party besides doing regular business was also indulging in providing accommodation entries. Simply on the basis of statement given by the third party, that they were also providing accommodation entries as well, the conduct of the assessee cannot be doubted and held to be sham.

S. 80-IA/ 80HHC: Despite the introduction of 'block of assets' depreciation cannot be thrust on the assessee while computing quantum of eligible deduction
The High Court had to be consider whether for computing the profits eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC and 80-IA, depreciation (under the concept of 'block of assets') had to be deducted even though the assessee had not claimed the same. The department relied on the judgement of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Plastiblends India Limited vs. ACIT 318 ITR (Bom) (FB) where it was held that for the purposes of deduction under Chapter VIA, the gross total income has to be computed inter alia by deducting the deductions allowable under sections 30 to 43D of the Act, including depreciation allowable under section 32 of the Act, even though the assessee has computed the total income under Chapter IV by disclaiming the current depreciation. HELD by the Gujarat High Court taking a different view:
Depreciation is optional to the assessee and once he chooses not to claim it, the Assessing Officer cannot allow it while computing the income. Further, once depreciation is optional, it will be optional for block of assets also. It is not necessary that the depreciation is allowable or not allowable as a whole. The assessee can claim it partly also in respect of certain block of assets and not claim in respect of other block of assets. Accordingly, for purposes of sections 80HHC and 80-IA, depreciation not claimed for by the assessee cannot be allowed as a deduction despite the introduction of the concept of block of assets.



__._,_.___
View attachments on the web

Posted by: Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com>


receive alert on mobile, subscribe to SMS Channel named "aaykarbhavan"
[COST FREE]
SEND "on aaykarbhavan" TO 9870807070 FROM YOUR MOBILE.

To receive the mails from this group send message to aaykarbhavan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com





__,_._,___

No comments:

Post a Comment