SHREE SUDHAKAR PANDEY,SONBHEDRA vs. ACIT RANGE-III, MIRZAPUR

ITA 7/ALLD/2021Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad15 December 2021AY 2014-158 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, depreciation is not separately allowable when the net profit is estimated after rejecting the books of accounts. CBDT circulars do not override High Court judgments.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a civil contractor, had its books of accounts rejected, and its income estimated at 8% of gross receipts. The Tribunal had previously remanded the issue of depreciation allowance to the Assessing Officer. In the subsequent proceedings, the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation, and the CIT(A) upheld this.

What were the issues?

Whether depreciation is allowable when the assessee's income is estimated after rejection of books of accounts, and the applicability of CBDT circulars in such cases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH, ALLAHABAD

Before: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO

For Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07/12/2021Pronounced: 17/12/2021

SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.04.2019 of CIT(A), (National Faceless Appeal Centre), Delhi for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to take care of conclusion of Ld. Assessing Officer marked at point No. 4 of the assessment order dated 13.04.2019 that Audited balance sheet of AY 2014-15 has now been filed and so the W.D.V. of the opening and closing of fixed assets was produced before ld. Assessing Officer.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing the depreciatio

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 44AD

All 2,222 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →