Search: depreciation

2 results for “depreciation”+ Section 50Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai155 Delhi75 Ahmedabad24 Kolkata21 Pune15 Jaipur13 Bangalore10 Guwahati9 Chandigarh9 Hyderabad9 Indore9 Chennai8 Raipur7 Lucknow5 Jodhpur4 Visakhapatnam3 Amritsar3 Rajkot2 Surat2 Nagpur1 Cochin1 Telangana1 Agra1

Key Topics

Section 50C3 Section 271(1)(c)2 Addition to Income2

SMT. HANSABEN NATVARSINH THAKOR,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1508/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.1508/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Hansaben Natvarsinh Thakor, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, At/Post-Dumlav, Ward-2, Valsad. Tal./Dist.-Valsad – 396 055. [Pan: Aempd 2671 N] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay – Advocate. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri P.S.Chowdhary –Sr.Dr

Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

depreciation was allowed on the said property in A.Y. 2010-11. The profit on sale of property was also shown in the case of firm for A.Y.2012-13 and on this basis the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the penalty imposed in respect of this very addition made in the case of assessee by invoking the provisions of section 50C

SMT. HANSABEN NATVARSINH THAKOR,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, VALSAD

DHAMI BROTHERS,,SURAT vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-9,, SURAT

SMT. HANSABEN NATVARSINH THAKOR,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, VALSAD

DHAMI BROTHERS,,SURAT vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-9,, SURAT