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 1386 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of claim u/s 35E - Held that:- We find that the issue for Assessment year 2000-01 and 2002-03, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, therefore, in view of the decision from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Paul Brothers [1992 (10) TMI 5 - BOMBAY High Court] and Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. (2012 (8) TMI 709 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), we allow this ground of the assessee as in the absence of any contrary facts. The Department is not expected to a different view. Depreciation in respect of badminton court allowed. Reimbursement of school expenses allowed. Sales tax and VAT subsidy received by the assessee - Held that:- This ground was taken as additional ground. Since, this ground was not raised before the Revenue authorities, therefore, in all fairness, this ground is sent to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the assessee and decide in accordance with law. The assessee be given opportunity of being heard. Allowance of depreciation for earlier years, when such depreciation was not actually allowed in those years - Held that:- We note that the assessee did not claim depreciation while computing business profit for Assessment year 2000-01 and 2001-02, which position had become final as the ld. Assessing Officer did not allow depreciation in those years. However, the Explanation-5 to section 32 of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act w.e.f. 01/04/2002 (i.e. from Assessment year 2002-03) from which year the assessee had started claiming depreciation. Considering the totality of facts, we are in agreement with the finding of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) that it is not open for the Assessing Officer to assume the allowance of depreciation for earlier years, when such depreciation was not actually allowed in those years, because, the situation could have been different, if he would have reopened the assessment of those earlier years. Without amending the assessments of those years, the assumed written down value could not be considered to work out the depreciation of the current year - Decided against revenue Exchange rate fluctuation loss - Held that:- We affirm the stand of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) by holding that the loss arising on account of foreign exchange fluctuation rate in respect of loans on revenue account is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. Claim for depreciation on UPS at the rate of 15% as against 60% - Held that:- The assessee the depreciation on UPS at the rate of 60% in place of 15% restricted by the Revenue. See Macawber Engineering System (I) P. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2013 (11) TMI 131 - ITAT MUMBAI ] Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - assessee received dividend income - Held that:- Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) sent back the matter to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer to make a reasonable disallowance by following the decision from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Ltd.[ (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT)]. We find no infirmity in the direction of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the same is affirmed.
|