9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1322 - AT - Income TaxEntitlement to claim the left over portion of additional depreciation being the carry forward figure from the previous year u/s. 32(1)(iia) - Held that - As decided in assessee s own case 2015 (5) TMI 647 - ITAT KOLKATA issue on proposition of law regarding allowance of remaining additional depreciation in the next assessment year u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act was covered in favour of assessee and against revenue by the decision of in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2014 (12) TMI 436 - ITAT KOLKATA wherein it was held that extra depreciation allowable u/s. 32(1)(iia) is an extra incentive which has been earned and calculated in the year of acquisition but restricted for that year to 50% on account of usage. The so earned incentive must be made available in the subsequent year. The overall deduction of depreciation u/s. 32 shall definitely not exceed the total cost of machinery and plant. Thus assessee is entitled for the balance 50% additional depreciation in view of sec. 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the next assessment year for remaining unutilized additional depreciation.- Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - The assessee has got sufficient own funds which are several times more than the investments made by the assessee. Hence it can be safely concluded that borrowed funds have not been utilized for the purpose of making investments. Accordingly we hold that the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules could not be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. - Decided in favour of assessee. Whether disallowance u/s. 14A could be made to the book profit computed u/s. 115JB - Held that - In this regard we have already held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act could be made in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly ground raised by the assessee are allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue. 2. Allowance of leave encashment provision. 3. Entitlement to claim the leftover portion of additional depreciation. 4. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. 5. Disallowance under Section 14A to the book profit computed under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal by the Revenue: The Revenue's appeal was delayed by 10 days. A condonation petition was filed explaining the reason for the delay. The assessee did not object to the condonation. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for hearing. 2. Allowance of Leave Encashment Provision: The issue was whether the provision made for leave encashment amounting to Rs. 1,47,66,197/- was allowable. The CIT(A) had allowed the claim based on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. However, the Supreme Court had stayed this judgment. The assessee's counsel agreed that the matter should be remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication pending the Supreme Court's decision. The Revenue did not object. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO to await the Supreme Court's decision. 3. Entitlement to Claim the Leftover Portion of Additional Depreciation: The assessee claimed the remaining 50% of additional depreciation (Rs. 9,02,49,544/-) for assets put to use for less than 180 days in the previous year. The AO disallowed this claim, and the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal found that the issue was covered by its earlier decisions, which allowed the claim for the remaining additional depreciation in the subsequent year. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for the leftover additional depreciation. 4. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D: The AO made a disallowance of Rs. 11,05,019/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the AO had not recorded any satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim that no expenditure was incurred to earn the exempt income. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must indicate cogent reasons for rejecting the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D. Since the AO failed to do so, the Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A could be made. Additionally, it was established that the assessee had sufficient own funds, and borrowed funds were not used for investments. Thus, the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(ii) were not applicable. 5. Disallowance under Section 14A to the Book Profit Computed under Section 115JB: The Tribunal held that since no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted, the question of making any disallowance to the book profit computed under Section 115JB did not arise. Consequently, the grounds related to this issue were allowed. Conclusion: The appeal by the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal by the assessee was partly allowed. The Tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on 18.05.2016.
|
