Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 1117 - AT - Income TaxDeduction claimed u/s 80JJAA - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that:- As going by the plain language of the provision of section 80JJAA of the Act, it cannot be interpreted that for availing deduction under the said section on account of additional wages paid to new regular workmen employed for three assessment years commencing from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such employment is provided such workmen should continue in the employment for all the three years. The only condition provided under the explanation being the regular workmen that the workmen should be employed for not less than 300 days during the previous year. Therefore, the expression additional wages paid to new workmen employed by the assessee in the previous year is the criteria to be fulfilled and to be tested in the first year of the claim of deduction and once deduction is allowable in the first year then, 30% of such additional wages is allowable as deduction in each of the subsequent two years. As we have already discussed in the facts emerging from the record, the AO has not disputed the completion of 300 days of employment by these new regular workmen employed by the assessee during the earlier two years and therefore, once the said condition is satisfied, the condition of continuity in employment does not emanate from the provisions of section 80JJAA of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the CIT(A) qua this issue. Depreciation claimed on the assets purchased - w.d.v. in the books of the seller is a tangible material before the AO on the basis on which the AO has determined the actual cost of the asset to the assessee - Held that:- Where the assessee acquired an asset which was used by other person for the purpose of business or profession and in such a case if, the AO is satisfied that the main purpose of transfer of the asset directly or indirectly was the reduction of liability to income tax than the actual cost to the assessee shall be the amount which is determined by the AO having regard to all the circumstances of the case. In the case in hand, the AO did not undertake any exercise of examination of the valuation report produced by the assessee or to determine the actual cost of the assets to the assessee. The AO has simply adopted the w.d.v. of the assets in the books of the seller being the actual cost to the assessee and consequently, restricted the claim of depreciation. When the assesee has submitted the valuation report of an expert than without having conducting a proper enquiry and examination to substitute experts opinion, the AO is not justified to brush aside the valuation produced by the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the authorities below qua this issue and remit the matter to the record of the AO to decide this issue afresh in the light of various decisions, as relied upon by the assessee
|