Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 260 - ITAT AHMEDABADDisallowance under section 14A of the Act – Held that:- The Assessee has not placed any material to demonstrate the number of transactions and the details of receipt of exempt income - The Assessee has also not been able to demonstrate that no administrative expenses at all have been incurred for earning the exempt income - CIT(A) while deleting the disallowance has not given any detailed finding but by passing a very cryptic order has summarily upheld the disallowance - It is a settled law that the principle of res judicata is not applicable in income tax matters and each assessment year is separate unit of assessment – thus, the disallowance is restricted to a sum instead made by the AO – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. Depreciation on lease hold land – Held that:- The Decision in Torrent Power Ltd., Torrent House Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2014 (2) TMI 1020 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] followed - Merely because the deed was registered the transaction in question would not assume a different character - By obtaining the land on lease the assessee has acquired a facility to carry on business by paying nominal lease rent, therefore, lease rent paid was held allowable as Revenue expenditure - The matter remitted back to the AO for examination of the facts – Decided in favuor of Assessee. Disallowance of fees paid for new project at Bhuvneshwar – Held that:- Assessee submitted that the expenditure was incurred for the study relating to possible expansion of project in the same line of business and the expenditure has neither brought into existence any new asset nor has resulted into any benefit of enduring nature to the Assessee and the project could not materialize and abandoned – but, no tangible material has been placed on record before us by Assessee in support of the contentions - report which the Assessee had received from Ernst and Young was also not placed on record – thus, the order of A.O. upholding the disallowance needs to be upheld and that of CIT(A) on the ground set aside – Decided against Revenue.
|