Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1168 - ITAT CHENNAIRevision u/s 263 - withdrawing the claim of balance 10% additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) - Held that:- As carefully gone through the judgment in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (2015 (1) TMI 1248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) held after extracting the provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, found that beneficial legislation has to be interpreted liberally so as to benefit the assessee. The intention of the legislation is to allow additional benefit. The Karnataka High Court opined that the proviso would not restrain the assessee from claiming the balance of the benefit of additional depreciation in the subsequent assessment year. CIT was not correct in holding that the assessee is not eligible to claim 10% additional depreciation for the machinery purchased and used for less than 180 days during the previous year. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT under section 263 of the Act and restore that of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Addition made on account of excess claim of power and fuel (diesel expenditure) - Held that:- Admitted, in the present case, Books of accounts of the assessee are subject to statutory audit. As the turnover of the company exceeded the prescribed limits, the assessee’s case is covered under section 44AB of the Act. The assessee has also filed the 44AB Audit Report before the Assessing Officer and he has not found any mistake in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. He has also not rejected assessee's books of account. For making any addition, Assessing Officer should find necessary material evidence from the assessee's books of account or make use of any other information available through internal or external sources. However, in this case, estimated addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of comparative data culled out from others. Under the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the estimated addition and we find no reason to interfere with the above findings of the ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue Addition made towards excess purchase price paid for ginned cotton - Held that:- Admittedly, in this case, the Assessing Officer has not noticed any mistake in the books of accounts maintained and the tax audit report filed by the assessee. It is an admitted fact that each and every mill has a distinct purchase policy depending upon the products manufactured as well as the end use of the yarn and also the strength and colour. Similarly, the rates of cotton shall vary with the area of the crop as well as the picking of the crop. Moreover, the rate varies with the payment schedule of the mills. Admittedly, the assessee purchased the raw materials on credit basis and made the payment on account payee cheques. For working out the price of ginned cotton, the Assessing Officer has taken the price declared by the Cotton Association of India, which is not applicable to the assessee since the CAI price quoted is for ready money cash price, whereas, the assessee has purchased the materials on credit basis. In the appellate order, the ld. CIT(A) has given a detailed findings over the methodology adopted by the Assessing Officer for estimating the disallowance, which cannot be sustainable, when the Assessing Officer has not disputed the books of accounts and other particulars filed by the assessee. - Decided against revenue
|