Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 540 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 195 - payment made to the non-residents - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) in respect of consultancy and supervision charges - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case [2019 (5) TMI 458 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] to be decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of additional depreciation - used less than 180 days - entire plant and machinery was on lease - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case [2019 (5) TMI 458 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] it is an undisputed fact that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing business as well as in the business of leasing. Therefore the condition imposed under section 32(iia) of the Act gets fulfilled for claiming the additional depreciation. While claiming the deduction under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act setting up wind-mill has nothing to do with the power industry and what is required to be satisfied in order to claim additional depreciation is that the setting up of new machinery or plant should have been acquired and installed by an assessee, who was already engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. Considering relevant provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) which was prevailing at the relevant time, i.e. during the year under consideration, it cannot be said that the ITAT by applying the ratio of decision of VTM Ltd. [2009 (9) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and Hi Tech Arai Ltd. [2009 (9) TMI 60 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has committed any error in deleting the additionon account of disallowance of additional depreciation of Wind Electric Generator. Disallowance on account of unutilized CENVAT credit - appellant has been following exclusive method for accounting CENVAT as against inclusive method mandated under section 145A - HELD THAT:- T he identical issue has already been decided in the identical facts and circumstances of the case in the matter of CIT-vs-Bell Granito Ceramica Ltd. [2012 (6) TMI 879 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in favour of the assessee as held under the scheme of the excise duty, the assessee incurs liability to pay excise duty only upon both the events taking place, namely manufacture of excisable goods and removal of excisable goods; excise duty is not therefore includible in the valuation of closing stock. We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 263 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. - Decided against revenue Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - no claim for expenditure - HELD THAT:- As perused the relevant materials available on record and also the judgment passed by the Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (3) TMI 856 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] . It is settled principle of law that when there is no claim for expenditure addition of notional disallowance expenditure is all the more illogical and unsustainable in the eye of law, particularly when the AO has not been able to prove that any expense has been made to earn the income nor has disproved the claim of the appellant in this regard. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|