Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 945 - ITAT MUMBAIAllowability of Expenditure – Repairs and maintenance – Held that:- The assessee has incurred the expenditures for not creating any new asset and /or carried out total new premises - The expenditures has been incurred to, only for renovation and to carry out the repairs and replacement of existing door frames, electricity wiring etc- the expenditure has been incurred to put new wooden panel, plastering walls, ceiling and to replace electrical wire - the expenditures cannot be said to be an for renovation of the building -out of the total expenditure of Rs.17,24,609/- the expenditure of Rs. 15,96,849/- is the revenue in nature, the expenditure incurred towards current repairs for renovation and the repairs of the premises in connection with the business of the assessee and the same is to be allowed as revenue expenditure – Decided against Revenue. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act – Held that:- The AO before invoking the provisions of Rule 8D read with section 14A sub-section (2)(iii) has to give a finding that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee with regard to such expenditure - the assessee has not on its own made any disallowance on account of investment made and earning of the dividend income - the AO in the assessment order has referred the provision of section 14A (2) of the Act as well as CBDT notification dated 24.3.2008 for applying Rule 8D and to make disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules – there is no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) and accordingly the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act sustained – Decided against Assessee. Rebate u/s 88E of the Act – Held that:- Assessee submitted that nowhere it has been mentioned that how the expenses are incurred under indirect expenses and has been considered for making the adjustment while making rebate u/s 88E of the Act – revenue could not controvert the contention of the assessee – as both the parties agreed that the matter be restored to AO to recalculate the rebate to be allowed to the assessee u/s 88E of the Act – thus, the matter remitted back to the AO for recalculation – Decided in favour of Assessee.
|