Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 1181 - AT - Income TaxExpenditure on on replacement of meters - nature of expenditure - revenue or capital - Held that:- This issue is covered by High Court judgement in assessee’s own case for AYs 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 [2013 (7) TMI 1095 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in favour of assessee. Apportionment of proportionate expenses of head office and allocation to Goa unit, Samalkot unit and Windmill unit - Held that:- This issue is covered in favour of assessee by assessee’s own case of Hon’ble High Court decision for AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08 and also see [2014 (6) TMI 574 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Allowance of transmission and wheeling charges - non deduction of tds - Held that:- Tribunal in assessee’s own case has allowed the claim of the assessee, respectfully following the same and taking a consistent view we dismiss this issue of Revenue’s appeal. Disallowance of foreign exchange loss holding the same as Revenue in character - Held that:- The effects of changes in foreign exchange rates, exchange differences arising on the settlement of monetary items or on reporting an enterprise's monetary items at rates different from those at which they were initially recorded during the period, or reported in previous financial statements, should be recognized as income or expenses in the period in which they arise. The loss suffered by the company on account of exchange rate variation as on the date of balance sheet is an ascertained liability valued as per the foreign exchange rate prevailing on the date of balance sheet. Thus it is an ascertained liability allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act. We find that this issue of the assessee is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.[2007 (4) TMI 118 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Accordingly, we are of the view that the mark to market loss i.e unrealized loss of ₹ 66,23,70,735/- is allowable. We also finf from the facts of the case that from the chart given above, it can be seen that there was realized loss on of ₹ 6,72,27,910/- which includes in the figure of ₹ 66,23, 70,735/- and thus the unrealized loss was only ₹ 59,51,42,825/-. We direct the AO accordingly. Non applicability of provision of provision u/s 115JB - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case AY 2001-02 to 2009-10 that assessee is following the accounting policies under the Electricity Supply act and prepared its accounts in view of those very policies. Following those very policies, the accounts in accordance with part II & III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act are not applicable at all. Once there is no possibility for preparing the accounts in accordance with the part II & 11 of Schedule VI of Companies Act then the provisions of sec. 115JB cannot be forced. Disallowance of interest expenses for working out the disallowance expense under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D - Held that:- If the capital and reserve is much more than the investment it is presumed that the investment has been made out of own funds and therefore disallowance of interest under section 14A of the Act cannot be made. We find force in the argument of Ld Counsel and in the given facts of the case we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. Disallowance under section 115JB of the Act of expenses relatable to exempt income by invoking the provisions of section 14A - Held that:- We have also considered this issue and find that the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act are not applicable in this case and once the provisions are not applicable no disallowance under this section can be made. We confirm the order of CIT(A) and this issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Disallowance of exempt income which is not yielded tax from income - Held that:- Set aside this issue back to the file of the AO to ascertain the investment giving rise to taxable income and non-taxable income and accordingly, taxable investments can be excluded while making disallowance. We are in agreement with the argument of the assessee and accordingly, we remand this issue back to the file of the AO. See CIT Versus M/s. Delite Enterprises [2009 (2) TMI 498 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ]
|