Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 993 - AT - Income TaxAddition incurred by the Assessee as his share for the repair of Khodginim road - Held that:- Supreme court in the case of L.H sugar factory and oil mills (1980 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court ) where in it is held that when a road is constructed in order to facilitate transport of sugarcane to sugar factory and the outflow of the manufactured sugar to the market, such construction facilitates the business operation of the assessee and enables the assessee to conduct the business more efficiently and profitably. Though the advantage may be of long duration as the roads would last long, nevertheless, it would not be an advantage in the capital field, as no tangible or intangible asset was acquired by the assessee, nor was there any addition to, or expansion of the profit-making apparatus of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee Depreciation on the purchase of UPS - Held that:- The facts relating to this ground are that the Assessee has claimed Depreciation @ 60% treating it to be part of computer while the AO allowed Depreciation @ 15%. The Assessee went in appeal. CIT(A) decided in favour of the Assessee. After hearing the rival submissions, we noted that this issue is duly covered by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orient Ceramics and Industries [2011 (1) TMI 26 - DELHI HIGH COURT ]. No contrary decision was brought to our knowledge.Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, we confirm the order of CIT(A). Thus, this ground stands dismissed. Disallowance made u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D - Held that:- Respectively following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT & another [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] we delete the disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D Non deduction of tds u/s 195 - disallowance towards the payment of the sales commission to the non-resident agents - Held that:- In the present case, it is significant to note that assessee is an established iron ore exporter and has been exporting iron ore to the same countries year after year for substantially long time. It is also observed that the assessee has been transacting with known business concerns and therefore, there was no real necessity for an agent to render any service for promoting sales with such concerns with whom the assessee has been transacting for long. As far as Mitusi & Co., Japan, is concerned, it is pertinent to note that assessee has been exporting iron to this concern for substantially long time,which should normally not require any sales promotion. Considering the facts of the case as discussed above, the assessee has not been able to substantiate the claim for payment of commission to non-resident agents by adducing specific and tangible evidence to demonstrate that services were rendered by the sales agents to justify commission payment as claimed by the assessee. Therefore, in view of the above, it is held that the commission payment which is claimed to have been paid to non-resident agents cannot be allowed as business expenditure u/s 37 of the I.T. Act, and therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is accordingly confirmed.
|