“Section 32(1)(iv)”

Section References (mined)Section 32Section 32(1)(iv)2 judgments

BACKBONE TARMET NG JV,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 315/AHD/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Vs. Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, The Income-Tax Officer, A-9, Kumud Apartment, Ward-5(2)(2), Near Stadium Five Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aaaab 3885 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Deciding Appeal Ex- Parte Without Appreciating That Business Of The Appellant Has Been Closed Since Covid-19 & Therefore, In Absence Of Any Office, Notice(S) Claimed To Be Have Been Served Through Email Could Not Be Communicated To The Partners Of The Appellant. Without Prejudice To This It Is Submitted That No Notice(S) Came To Be Served On The Appellant At The Designated Email Stated In Form No. 35 For The Purpose Of Service Of Notice(S). Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv Vs. Ito Ay : 2005-06 2

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 250(6)Section 40

withdrawn.” Reliance was also placed on the following decision • B.V.K. Seshavataram Vs. CIT, 210 ITR 633 (AP) “Section 256(1) , read with section 32(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Reference to High Court - Question of law - Assessment years

PADMA RAO,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 61(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2759/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri V. K Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 28Section 4Section 56(2)(xi)

firm of Chartered Accountants constructed a building for the purpose of residence for its low paid employees and claimed initial depreciation @ 40% under Section 32(1)(iv) of the Act. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) vide its order dated 15.1.1985 rejected the claim of the assessee-appellant on the ground ... under: Section 32(1) of the Act does not help the appellant in any way to construe the word "business" appearing in sub-section 32(1)(iv) to include "profession" as well. The legislature intended to have different scope for business and profession in Section 32(1). If the legislature