Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1284 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of depreciation - Held that:- Assessee has shown these assets under its wealth tax return and it has been charged to wealth tax as assets of the assessee for the wealth tax purpose. This fact is not controverted by the Ld. DR. Accordingly the wealth tax Act only the assets which are ‘owned’ by the assessee are chargeable to tax. Therefore, now in Income tax Act it cannot be disputed that the assets are not owned by the assessee. Ld. DR has also not shown us any reasons to say that the meaning of the word ‘owned’ in wealth tax Act and its meaning as per section 32 of the Income Tax Act for claim of depreciation are different. It was further submitted that no disallowance has been made by the AO himself for Assessment Year 2011-12 where the claim of the assessee was made in the return of income. Therefore, in subsequent years revenue has accepted the claim of the assessee. This fact is also not controverted by ld. DR. We are of the view that if there being no change either in facts or in law, as compared to this year and later on years where the claim of the assessee of depreciation is accepted , the disallowance in this year cannot be sustained. Addition towards interest of sticky loans and advances - Held that:- Respectfully following the decision of Honourable Delhi high court in CIT Vashisth Chay Vyapar limited (2010 (11) TMI 88 - Delhi High Court ) and decision of coordinate bench in case of the assesse for AY 2003-004, we direct the AO to delete the addition of ₹ 8,08,14,506/- towards interest of sticky loans and advances which was not recognized as income by the appellant in accordance with the mandatory prudential norms issued by the Reserve Bank of India. In the result ground no 3 of the appeal is allowed. Disallownce of actual loss of sale repossessed assets and forming an integral part of the non-banking financial activity of the appellant - Held that:- the assessee is entitled to claim of loss on sale of repossessed assets. In view of the decision, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd [2010 (11) TMI 802 - Delhi High Court ] wherein it is held that loss of repossessed vehicle sold is also deductible to the assessee. The above decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has further been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court [2012 (1) TMI 290 - SUPREME COURT]. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble supreme court we allow the claim of the assessee of loss arising on sale of repossessed vehicle, delete the disallowance Transfer pricing adjustments - MAM determination - Held that:- Services that the assessee has demonstrated and satisfied the Need Test, Evidence Test or rendition test and benefit test as envisaged u/s 92 (2) of the act and the services provided by the AE are neither duplicative or shareholder’s activity, therefore the LD. AO/ ld. TPO is directed to determine Arms’ length price of these services based on the documents submitted by the assessee by determining ‘tested party’, determination of ‘most Appropriate method’ and ‘Comparability analysis’. For these purposes these grounds of transfer pricing is set aside to the file of Ld. TPO.
|