Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2011 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 763 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A - Rule 8D of the I. T. Rules - assessee was engaged in the business of Civil Engineering construction, deployment of personnel and transportation work and filed the return of income on 30/11/2006 declaring net income of Rs. 9,45,72,136 - it would be clear that the mandate of Section 14A is to prevent claims for deduction of expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income of the assessee - Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), the provisions of Rule 8D are applicable prospectively and not retrospectively - since the AO applied the provisions contained in Rule 8D, which are applicable with effect from A.Y. 2008-09, while the assessment year involved in this case is 2006-07 - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of remand Regarding disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - TDS u/s 194C - assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of Civil Engineering construction, limestone mines and real estate etc - Hire charges - in the present case, the lender neither had any work obligation nor any command, control and possession of the machines after they were temporarily handed over to the assessee on hire basis - it is clear that the said provisions are applicable when the contract is entered into (i) for carrying out any work and (ii) supply of labour to carry out any work - Held that: assessee took the machinery and equipment on hire for carrying out the specific work so the hiring of machinery and equipment did not amount to contract for carrying out any work as contemplated in section 194C of the Act as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the aforesaid referred to case - Circular No. 681 dated 08/03/94 - the provisions of section 194-I of the Act are also not applicable to the facts of the present case. - Decided in favor of the assessee Regarding prior period expenses - the vendor asked for the payment against the said bill during the year under consideration - the liability was ascertained and crystallised during the year under consideration - Held that: it was allowable for deduction in the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration - Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose
|