Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 37 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of bad debts Held that:- The assessee has filed party-wise details of sales made to these persons, income accounted for and the reasons for the amount written off as bad debts Relying upon T.R.F Limited Vs. CIT [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT] - it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debts, in fact, has become the irrecoverable - It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee - the assessee has filed the details before the CIT(A) , but it has not been appreciated thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication Decided in favour of Assessee. Disallowance of claim of additional depreciation Addition of MODVAT u/s 145A of the Act Held that:- The assessee was required to furnish the details of machinery or plant and increase in the installed capacity of production to claim additional depreciation - The assessee shall be given one more opportunity to furnish complete particulars including installed capacity, details of machinery etc. -The assessee shall also submit a certificate from the Chartered Engineer regarding the installed capacity so that the requirement of the AO can be satisfied in this regard thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication Decided in favour of Assessee. Claim of deduction u/s 35(1)(iv) of the Act Capital expenses on research and development Held that:- Following CIT Vs. Deltron Ltd. [2007 (9) TMI 132 - HIGH COURT, DELHI] - while considering the assessees claim for deduction u/s 35(1) on account of expenditure on scientific research, the AO is not the prescribed authority in this matter and is not competent to determine as to whether the machinery was for research and development purposes or not - the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the AO could not have disallowed the expenditure without following the procedure laid down u/s 35(3) thus, there is no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) Decided against Revenue.
|