“Section 10(29)”
The decision most relied on for Section 10(29) is CIT v. Sarkar Builders (375 ITR 392), cited in 79 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 10(29)
An assessee should not be prejudiced by differences in accounting treatment if accounting principles are duly followed and the issue is revenue neutral, as hypothetical income cannot be subjected to tax.
If the cost of acquisition for tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received from the surrender of such tenancy rights is not subject to capital gains tax.
The Supreme Court in CIT v. Anand Theatres established that the functional test is decisive for classifying an asset as 'plant' or 'building' for depreciation purposes. It clarified that items like sanitary fittings and electrical installations in a hotel are considered 'plant', not part of the building, for depreciation.
Consideration received on surrender of tenancy rights is not subject to capital gains tax if the cost of acquisition of such rights cannot be determined.
The 'written down value' (WDV) under Section 43(6)(b) is determined by depreciation that has been 'actually allowed', meaning it has been taken into account or granted and given effect to by the Income-tax Officer in computing taxable income.
A rate imposed upon a business owner or occupier, where the quantum is fixed after considering the owner's circumstances including business income, is not assessed on the basis of profits and is therefore allowable as a business expense.
An appellate authority has the discretion to allow the production of additional evidence if it is required to pass orders or for any substantial cause, which must be exercised judicially.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has broad discretion to admit or reject documents at the appellate stage. This discretion must be exercised judiciously, and if documents are relevant to the issue at hand, the Tribunal can admit them, consider them, or remit the matter to lower authorities.
