Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 744 - AT - Income TaxDeletion of disallowance of excess depreciation on tippers, road rollers and JCB u/s 32 of the Act - Held that:- Depreciation on tippers, road rollers and JCB will be allowable @ 40% as against 25% allowed by the AO treating these machineries as plant and machinery and not under the category of motor vehicles there was no infirmity in the order passed by ld. CIT (A) allowing the higher rate of depreciation in respect of tippers, road rollers and JCBs in both the years though for different reasons - Relying upon CIT vs. A.M. Construction [1998 (8) TMI 58 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court]. Deletion of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act - Non-deduction of TDS on transport expenses Held that:- The payments for purchase of material and supply at the site of construction has not resulted in carrying out of any work by a contractor or a sub-contractor for the purposes of section 194C of the Act - the tax was not to be deducted at source u/s 194C of the Act - the assessee had not made payment to a contractor or a subcontractor - Relying upon Birla Cement Works v CBDT [2001 (2) TMI 8 - SUPREME Court] - The payment has been made for the purchase of building material which included the cost of transportation upto the site of the assessee Thus, the payment made for purchase of material including the transportation cost would not fall under the category of payment to contractor or sub-contractor - the payment made by the assessee will not be hit by the provisions of Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act. Deletion on account of remission or cessation of liabilities u/s 41 (1) of the Act Held that:- The assessee has not written back the liabilities nor have the parties forgone their claims Thus, no benefit has been derived by the assessee - the assessee has made payment to the parties in the year under consideration by way of cash, the payments made to outstanding creditors cannot be treated as income u/s 41(1) of the Act the assessee had not derived any benefit as the assessee had paid off the liability in the year under consideration - There was no remission or cessation of liability - The AO had not collected any material on record to show that the parties to whom the payments were shown to have been made by the assessee had written off the amounts in the year under consideration - there was no cessation or remission of liability, the amount was not liable to be added u/s 41(1) of the Act decided against Revenue.
|