Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)1ITD539(Mum.)
1. The appeal which is filed by the revenue and the cross-objection which is moved by the assessee relate to the assessment year 1975-76.As both this appeal as well as the cross-objection are inter-connected, they are disposed of by this combined order for the sake of convenience. The assessee is a charitable trust. The first contention raised by the revenue in its appeal is in regard to the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow depreciation of Rs. 84,882 on the assets owned by the assessee. The assessee-trust owned jeeps, machinery, etc., the written down value of which worked out to Rs. 8,48,822. It claimed depreciation at the rate of 10 per cent on an ad hoc basis against the income earned by it. The claim of the assessee was that the income for the purpose of considering the question of deduction as required under Section 11(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") should be determined on commercial principles which would take into consideration the depreciation admiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1984)7ITD666(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 21-12-1979 of the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee is a limited company deriving income from business as a dealer in cotton yarn, silk yarn, soapstone powder, etc. Besides, the assessee also deals in shares and earns income by way of Mukadami Commission. The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1976-77 with the year ended 31-3-1976 as the relevant previous year.2. The only ground taken in this appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not allowing a sum of Rs. 7,541 being the liability for gratuity which accrued for the previous year under consideration, as computed on actuarial basis. Before the ITO, the assessee claimed to deduct a sum of Rs. 27,330 as gratuity liability computed on actuarial basis while computing the income from its business. No provision for the said amount was made in the acounts but the claim for deduction was made in the course of assessment proceedings. The ITO observed th...
Tag this Judgment!