Latest Expert Exchange Queries

Make your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft info@binarysoft.com
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) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: VAT RATES :: form 3cd :: TDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: VAT Audit :: due date for vat payment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: cpt :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: empanelment
 
 
« From the Courts »
 New Delhi Television Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
 John Fowler (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 CIT vs. The Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Iron and Steel Market Committee (Bombay High Court)
 KSS Petron Private Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 JK Mittal & Co vs. UOI (No. 2) (Delhi High Court)
 Pr CIT vs. Shri Mahila Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd (Gujarat High Court)
 Pr CIT Vs. PPC Business And Products Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)
 Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Iii Vs. M/s. Radico Khaitan Ltd.
 Mastech Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-3 Vs. Surya Vinayak Industires Ltd.
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-3 Vs. J.H. Business India Pvt. Ltd.

C& C Construction Pvt Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
December, 02nd 2011

260A: High Court has no power to consider issue not raised before Tribunal

 

The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal in which it argued that it had constructed a temporary construction which was eligible for 100% depreciation. This was rejected by the Tribunal on the basis that the construction was permanent. Before the High Court, the assessee argued for the first time that the expenditure was revenue in nature and admissible as business expenditure. HELD not permitting the assessee to raise the plea:

 

A contention/ issue, which is not raised, dealt with or answered by the Tribunal, cannot be raised before the High Court for the first time in an appeal u/s 260A. Though s. 260A(6) empowers the High Court to determine any issue which has not been determined by the Appellate Tribunal, the word determined means that the issue is not dealt with, though it was raised before the Tribunal. The word determined presupposes an issue was raised or argued but there is failure of the Tribunal to decide or adjudicated the same. However,as the issue whether the expenditure is capital or revenue was not raised before the Tribunal, it does not arise from the order of the Tribunal and cannot be entertained (Mahalakshmi Textile Mills 66 ITR 710 (SC) distinguished)

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Quality Assurance Services Testing and Re-testing

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