Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 807 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - Held that:- The undisputed facts are that the reopening is made on the basis of the note enclosed with the return of income by the assessee. The submission of the assessee that the assessee has not added provision for doubtful debt in working of the book profit relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Echjay Forgings Pvt.Ltd. reported at [2001 (2) TMI 56 - BOMBAY High Court] is not disputed by the Revenue that the material on the basis of which re-opening of assessment was proposed was already before the assessing officer in the form of note. In view of the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vishwanth Engineers vs. ACIT reported at (2012 (5) TMI 146 - Gujarat High Court ) the AO should not have reopened the assessment. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowances of operational and maintenance expenses and excess interest charged to GEB amount debited to P&L account of provision for doubtful debts to book profit u/s.115JB - Held that:- The authorities below have not given any finding that the assessee has not reduced the debtors from the asset side of the balance sheet to the extent to the corresponding amount so that, at the end of the year, the amount of debtors is shown as net of the provision for the impugned bad debt. In the absence of the same therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down in the case(s) of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 766 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] and CIT vs. Kirloskar Systems Ltd.(2013 (12) TMI 9 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) and also following the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd.(2012 (6) TMI 415 - ITAT, Ahmedabad), we hereby set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the disallowances. Thus, this ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed.- Decided in favour of assessee. Granting depreciation although not claimed by the assessee - Held that:- The issue is now squarely covered in favour of assessee by the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of DCIT vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Ind.Ltd. [2015 (1) TMI 704 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein held that depreciation not claimed for by the assessee, cannot be allowed as a deduction despite the introduction of the concept of block assets. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition made to the book profit of the assessee u/s.115JB - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The ld.counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. reported at (2008 (9) TMI 18 - SUPREME COURT ). We find that the ld.CIT(A) has given a finding on fact. This finding is not controverted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, we do not deem fit to interfere with the order of ld.CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|