Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 1020 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of cess of green leaf - Held that:- Rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, requires that the computation is to be made as if by fiction the entire income out of the tea grown and manufactured as income assessable under the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Held that entire amount paid as cess on green leaf seems to be eligible for deduction. See CIT Vs. AFT Industries Ltd [2004 (7) TMI 81 - CALCUTTA High Court ] Disallowance on account of notional interest on loan advanced - Held that:- Keeping in view of the fact that the Tribunal has set aside the matter to the file of the AO in the preceding years we set aside the issue to the file or the AO for the year under consideration also with the direction to decide the issue afresh in the light of the peculiar facts narrated by the Id. Counsel for the assessee after giving due opportunity to the assessee of being heard as per law. Additional depreciation claim - Held that:- Similar to the issue on hand was adjudicated in case M/s. Binaguri Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata [2013 (3) TMI 146 - ITAT KOLKATA] as referring to Explanation 7 to Section 43(6)reads as under:- “Explanation 7:- For the purpose of this clause, where the income of an assessee is derived, in part from agriculture and in part from business chargeable to income-tax under the head “profits and gain of business or profession”, from computing the written down value of assets acquired before the previous year, the total amount of depreciation shall be computed as if the entire income is derived from the business of assessee under the head “profits and gain of business or profession” and the depreciation so computed shall be deemed to be the depreciation actually allowed under this Act”. This Explanation has been inserted by Finance ( No.2) Act w.e.f 2009. It creates a deeming fiction affecting substantive computation provision determining actual tax liability. Therefore, ld. CIT(Appeals) has rightly treated it to be prospective. We, accordingly, uphold the order of ld. CIT(Appeals)to allow the claim of depreciation
|