Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 1179 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - failure on the part of assessee to disclose material facts - HELD THAT:- Reopening in this case was made within a period of four years from the end of the assessment year and the reopening was made subsequent information available with the Assessing Officer and therefore reopening is valid Deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) to be restricted to the provision made in books as against the entire eligible amount - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case [2013 (4) TMI 751 - ITAT CHENNAI] a look into the original assessment order clearly show that but for the deduction allowed to the assessee as claimed by it in its return, there was no discussion as to how Section 36(1)(viia) was applied and whether the limits were corrected worked out. Admittedly, no question was asked to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings also with regard to the claim made by it under Section 36(1)(viia), insofar as it concerns the quantum of such claim. This obviously show that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment. Assessing Officer had not come to any conclusion at all having not considered the claim in the light of the conditions set out in Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. We cannot say that he had taken a view which was in accordance with law. It is not a case where the Assessing Officer had adopted one of the courses possible in law. Of course, a cryptic order of the Assessing Officer by itself may not show that there was no thought given by him on a claim of the assessee. However, here there was no enquiry made during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the order which was silent on the claim made by the assessee, and allowing such claim, without any discussion, will definitely render it erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue - decided against assessee. Addition made towards provision for bad and doubtful debts and depreciation on investments - CIT-A deleted this addition on verifying the details furnished by the assessee i.e. copy of computation of income, break-up of provisions of contingencies debited to profit and loss account etc. accepting the contention of the assessee that it has correctly added back the provision while computing its income - HELD THAT:- No infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance. The Revenue has also not placed any document on record to rebut the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In the circumstances, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue. Taxability of unreconciled entries in inter branch transactions credited to profit and loss account - HELD THAT:- Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) following the decision of Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Addl. CIT [2012 (5) TMI 437 - ITAT, NEW DELHI] deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. On a perusal of the decision of the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal, we find that the said decision squarely applies to the issue on hand. The Delhi Bench of this Tribunal considered a similar situation where the assessee reduced unreconciled balances while computing the income which was brought to tax by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal held that question of bringing such sums to tax under section 41(1) are not permissible. Thus we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue. Non applicability of provisions of section 115JB to assessee bank as decided in assessee's own case [2013 (4) TMI 919 - ITAT CHENNAI] Interest under section 244A on the interest component of the refund also - HELD THAT:- On going through the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals [2013 (10) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT] we find that the issue on hand has been decided against the assessee by the Larger Bench holding that assessee is not entitled for interest on interest. Respectfully following the said decision, we hold that interest on interest is not allowable to the assessee. The grounds raised by the Revenue are allowed on this issue. Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- As perused the order of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal for the assessment year 2009-10, wherein the Tribunal held that authorities below have wrongly invoked section 14A in case of investments held as stock-in-trade. Disallowing deduction in respect of contribution to staff welfare fund confirmed relying on its own case [2013 (4) TMI 751 - ITAT CHENNAI]. Disallowance of provision for wage arrears - HELD THAT:- Provision made towards wage arrears is only a provision and liability has not been crystallized. The wage arrears shall be allowed as deduction in the year in which the assessee discharges the liability by paying wage arrears to the employees. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee on this issue is partly allowed. Relief u/s 90 to the extent of tax paid in the foreign country - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case [2014 (6) TMI 954 - ITAT CHENNAI] held that a case involving a DTAA, an income has to be included in the total receipts and the necessary relief is to be granted by ‘elimination’ method or as per the terms of agreement seeking to avoid double taxation. - Decided against assessee Provision for loss on ‘market to market’ basis in respect of trading derivatives could not have been disallowed. So, the impugned disallowance stands deleted. Depreciation on UPS to be allowed at 60% as decided in assessee's own case [2014 (6) TMI 954 - ITAT CHENNAI] Claim of the assessee for allowing provision for leave encashment invoking the provisions of section 43B to be allowed to be followed in assessee's own case [2013 (4) TMI 751 - ITAT CHENNAI].
|