Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 420 - ITAT MUMBAIDisallowance u/s 14A - whether on facts, where there is no exempt income, can the provisions of section 14A be invoked at all? - Held that:- the instant case, there is no claim of exempt income. The assessee explained the reason as well, as to how the dividend income received is taxable, because, the receipt of dividend was from a Sahakari Bank, which does not fall within the definition of Scheduled Bank and hence does not come within the scope of section 115O. Thus we are of the opinion that the revenue authorities erred in computing the disallowance. - Decided in favour of assessee. Whether there would be an effect in the working of tax in accordance with the provisions of section 115JB - Held that:- Provision of section 115JB would get attached, if the income determined under normal provisions is less then MAT, in such a circumstances MAT will supercede the normal provisions. Here in the case before us we do not find any reference of MAT provision. In such a circumstance, the second limb become otiose. In any case, tax payable under normal provisions was much more then MAT provisions. - Decided in favour of assessee. Depreciation claimed on inflated cost of windmills - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held that:- CIT(A), who allowed the claim of depreciation, placing reliance on the decision of his predecessors in assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2008-09 in the case of Karma Energy Ltd. (now amalgamated with the assessee). The issue was taken by the department before the ITAT and the ITAT, after considering detailed replies and submissions from either side, rejected the appeal as filed by the department, allowing the claim of depreciation - Decided against revenue. Exclusion of tax free investments from which no income was earned from the working of average tax free investment for the purpose of working under Rule 8D - Held that:- The assessee had interest free own funds of ₹ 8248.44 lacs and investments of ₹ 5162.95 lacs. This would clearly show that there would be no diversion of interest bearing funds. In such a case, the decision of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd reported in [2009 (1) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY] would squarely cover the conduct of the assessee.Since the assessee did not intend to earn dividend and the investments made were from interest free funds, in our opinion, the CIT(A) was correct to hold that no further disallowance was called for. We, therefore, sustain the order of the CIT(A), deleting the disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee.
|