Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 1145 - AT - Income TaxPrior period expenses allowed in accordance with the order of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s case for AY 2004-05 Depreciation on Cars - Held that:- A.O. simply disallowed the depreciation stating that the cars were registered in the names of the Directors. That alone cannot be a reason for disallowance unless it is examined whether the cars are purchased by the company but registered in the name of the Director or it is Director's vehicles purchased from their source treated as companies assets. Further the usage also has not been examined. It is also noticed that the CIT (A) in the later year has given findings that that assets have been purchased by the company and accordingly the depreciation is allowable following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. 1999 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court. However, there is no finding with reference to the details of payments and ownership. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the issue has to be re-examined by the A.O. in the light of the above observations for which purpose the issue is restored to the file of the A.O. to re-examine the nature of purchase of car, source thereof and claim of expenditure, etc. Commission of export to Iraq - Held that:- The commission on export activity had been fully disclosed in all correspondences and an activity in relation to export, the commission was paid through banking channel of RBI approval and it was paid pursuant to an agreement approved by Government of India and UN. The payment of commission was for business consideration and there was apparently no illegality in making payment of commission. Besides this, nothing has brought on record to show that the transactions relating to payment of commission are non-genuine or are excessive and unreasonable. The Volker Commission report had discussed about the utilization of money by the recipient of the commission in parting some of the fund so received as commission with the Government of Iraq and such parting of commission with the Government of Iraq was objected to by the Volker Commission report which was a pact between the Iraq Government and the UN wherein, as it appears, neither the appellant company is involved nor Government of India is involved. See CIT vs. Rajrani Export[2013 (5) TMI 410 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] Disallowance of DEPB/DEFRC - Held that:- Issue referred back for reconsideration Exchange rate gain on forward contract is business income. Accordingly the foreign exchange gain would be export profit and, hence, cannot be excluded from export turnover under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
|