Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link:
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Popular Search: TDS :: due date for vat payment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: cpt :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT RATES :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: VAT Audit :: empanelment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: list of goods taxed at 4%
« From the Courts »
  Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xiii & Anr.
 Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xiii & Anr.
 Central Board Of Direct Taxes Vs. Satya Narain Shukla
 Meena Rastogi Vs. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, & Anr.
 Siddharth Rastogi Vs. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue & Anr.
 ITO vs. NVS Builders Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)
 Approva Systems Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)
 Procter & Gamble Home Products Pvt. Ltd vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court)
 Virag Tiwari Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-21 & Others
  Anand Agarwal vs. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar (Bombay High Court)

Depreciation allowance - Depreciation after estimation of income
November, 28th 2006

CIT vs Bhullar Builders
Citation 194 Taxation 482, 286 ITR 686

The allowance of depreciation from the assessees income estimated by the AO by applying eight percent net profit rate was appropriate, as all relevant details pertaining to assets had been filed.

S.32 and s.145 of the Income Tax Act 1961 

High Court of Punjab and Haryana

CIT vs Bhullar Builders

I.T. Appeal No. 275/2004

Mr. D.K. Jain, C.J and Mr. Hemant Gupta, J

6 December 2005

Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Adv. for the Appellant
None for the Respondent


D.K. Jain, C.J.

This appeal by the revenue under section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against order, dated 17.5.2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-A (for short the Tribunal') in ITA No. 562/Chandi/2003 pertaining to the assessment year 1994-95. According to the revenue, the impugned order gives rise to the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law in separately allowing depreciation to the assessee for the assessment year 1994-95 when the net profit rate at 8% was adopted thereby deeming that the deductions under Sections 30 to 38 have already been given full effect?"

2. Since, in our opinion, in so far as this Court is concerned, the issue sought to be raised by the revenue is no more res Integra, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts, giving rise to the present appeal. Suffice it to note that the only issue before the Tribunal was that when a net profit rate is applied because of non-maintenance of proper books of accounts, the assessee is still entitled to claim other business expenses, like salary, interest and depreciation etc.?

3. A similar issue came up for consideration of this Court in CIT vs. Chopra Bros. (India) P. Ltd., 252 ITR 412 (PandH). The question for consideration in that case was whether an assessee was entitled to the claim of depreciation on machinery, when a net profit rate on contract receipts had been applied? Answering the question in favour of the assessee, this Court opined that such a claim had to be separately taken into account, provided the requisite particulars had been furnished by the assessee.

4. In an attempt to distinguish the said decision, Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel for the revenue has submitted that the ratio of the decision is not applicable on the facts of the instant case in as much as in the present case necessary particulars in support of the claims had not been furnished by the assessee.

5. Having perused the documents placed on record, we are of the opinion that the contention is devoid of any substance. In the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) it has been specifically noted that the audited accounts alongwith audit report, balance-sheet, PandL accounts, fixed assets and depreciation chart, as prescribed, had been filed with the Department. Learned counsel for the Revenue is unable to controvert the said observation by the Commissioner.

6. Thus, in view of the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Chopra Bros, (supra), no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, survives for our consideration.

7. Consequently, we decline to entertain the appeal. Dismissed.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Outsourcing Test Solutions Software Testing Software Bug Testing Software Issues Tracking Software Issue Fix Software Code Optimization Database Design Optimization

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions