Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.27 seconds)
Jayarama Reddy Boopesh ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 9 October, 2025 cites

Surjeet Singh Chhabra vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 October, 1996

7.6 The AO relied on judicial precedents to hold that a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act carries high evidentiary value. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India reported in AIR 1997 SC 2560 held that the statement given voluntary cannot be retracted. Further there was no material brought on record suggesting the statement was given under mistaken belief of facts or law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 235 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Chitram And Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 5 December, 1990

ITA No.705 - 711/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 36 9.4 The learned CIT(A) also emphasized that personal preferences or lifestyle choices of an assessee, even if aligned with his reputation as a successful developer, do not justify depreciation under the law. Depreciation is available only for assets used in the business and not for personal enjoyment. The fact that the cars were included in the fixed assets schedule in earlier years or that depreciation had been claimed in the returns did not automatically validate the claim. If cars were used mainly for personal purposes, the depreciation claim could not be allowed irrespective of their inclusion in the books. 9.5 The learned CIT(A) therefore concluded that the assessee's submissions were speculative and based on indirect claims linking cars to business purposes. No clear evidence had been brought on record to establish that the cars were actually used in business operations such as site visits, client meetings, or other revenue-generating activities. Accordingly, the depreciation claim was disallowed. 9.6 In support of this conclusion, the ld. CIT(A) relied on judicial precedent. He referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Chitram & Co. (P) Ltd. [1991] 55 Taxman 70, where it was held that in cases where cars are used partly for business and partly for non-business purposes, full depreciation cannot be allowed under section 38(2) of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next