Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (11) TMI 766 - AT - Income TaxDisallowing - Weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(ii)of IT Act for contribution to approved Institution for Scientific Research Institution - Extension of approval u/s 35(1)(ii) of IT Act - Held that:- the deduction u/s 35 could not be allowed until the approval is extended by the prescribed authority. Since the research centre is yet to be approved by the Central Government by Notification in official gazette - held that mere recommendation of CBDT does not amount to extension of approval as required u/s 35(1) of the Act - Decided against of assessee. Disallowed investment made u/s 54EC - whether assessee made investment within a period of 6 months from the date the sale proceeds were received by the assessee - no details were submitted by the assessee in the documents placed on record and/or in the orders of the authorities below as to when the assessee received the sale proceeds out of which the investment was made to claim benefit of section 54EC of the Act - in the interest of justice we consider it prudent that the above issue be restored to the AO with a direction that the assessee will furnish the requisite details to the AO of the receipt of sale proceeds and the date of investment - If the AO is satisfied that the said investment had been made within a period of 6 months from the date of the receipt of the sale proceeds, assessee will get the deduction u/s 54EC of the Act. amount paid to the employees on account of voluntary premature retirement -assessee submitted that similar issue in the case of the assessee was considered by the I.T.A.T., Kolkata Bench in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2001-02 in ITA No.448(Kol)/2005 vide order dated 21.04.06 (copy placed on record) and the Tribunal directed the AO to allow deduction in accordance with the provisions of section 35DDA at 20% instead of the entire amount with a direction to allow the balance of 20% each in four succeeding years. employees' contribution to provident fund after the due date as provided u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act - Held that:- the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the employees' contribution to provident fund which was paid after the due date as specified in Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act as section 43B cannot be pressed into service because section 43B comes into play only when a deduction is otherwise allowable under the Income Tax Act- Decided against of assessee. transaction cost on sale of the properties -sale of Nitrocellulose Business to Nitrate Chemicals Pvt Ltd. , sale of Polyurethene Business. , sale of shares of I.E.L. and Channai property - However, the learned A.R. conceded at the time of hearing that there is no supporting evidences to establish that the said expenses had been incurred by the assessee in the assessment year under consideration. Hence, we agree with the learned D.R. that the AO was justified to disallow the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee could not furnish supporting evidences and the same was only the provisions made by the assessee in the assessment year under consideration - Decided against of assessee.
|