Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1348 - HC - Income TaxDisallowance of the expenses for scientific research u/s.35(2AB) - Held that:- Appellate tribunal has not erred in law in holding that the expenses incurred outside the approved R & D facility are also eligible for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB). See CIT vs. Cadila Healthcare Limited [2013 (3) TMI 539 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) - interest free advances given - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- Tribunal has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Raghuvir Synthetics Limited (2013 (7) TMI 806 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) and has allowed the appeal to that extent in favour of the Assessee. When the question is already covered by the above referred decision of this Court, we do not find that any substantial question would arise for consideration, as canvassed. Disallowance of depreciation on building and plant and machinery - the Assessee has not produced any cogent evidence regarding use of the said plant purchased - ITAT allowed claim - Held that:- The question is already covered by the decision of this Court in the case of ACIT vs. Ashima Syntex Limited [2000 (8) TMI 22 - GUJARAT High Court] we do not find that such question can be considered as substantial question of law, which may arise in the present appeal, as canvassed. Appeal admitted on (D), (E), (F) &(G) being substantial questions of law. (D) Whether the Appellate tribunal has substantially erred in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 52,59,803/- in calculation of adjusted book profit for the purpose of MAT considered as towards provision for doubtful debt and diminution in the value of investment relying on the decision of coordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited ? (E) Whether the Appellate tribunal has substantially erred in law in deleting the addition of the provision for diminution in value of asset despite amended provisions of Clause (i) inserted in Explanation-I by Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.4.2001 under which the provisions for diminution in the value of any assets needs to be added back ? (F) Whether the Appellate tribunal has substantially erred in law in directing to reduce the prior period expenses of ₹ 23,27,520/- for the computation of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act ? (G) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 64,13,532/- quantified as disallowance expenditure u/s 14A, despite the specific provisions of Clause (f) of Explanation- I to Section 115JB and when the issue of disallowance u/s 14A under regular computation was restored to the CIT(A) ?
|