Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 881 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act – Held that:- There was no logic given by the authorities below as both the AO as well as CIT(A) has not given a finding as to how the assessee is required to capitalize the interest expenses - The reasoning far disallowance is self-contradictory - the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and is not justified – the assessee has pointed out that it has sufficient interest free fund and this is not contradicted by the authorities below even before the Tribunal no material has been placed on record suggesting that the assessee was not having interest free funds available for such advances – The decision in Munjal Sales Corporation Versus Commissioner of Income Tax [2008 (2) TMI 19 - Supreme Court] followed - the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance – Decided in favour of Assessee. Confirmation of depreciation interest on vehicle – Held that:- The terms "owned" "ownership" and "own" are generic terms - The meaning would depend on the context in which the term are used - the assessee has made submission that the cars were purchased in the name of the Director and such cars are utilized for the purposes of its business - the assessee would be entitled for the allowance depreciation as well as interest expenditure if the assessee is able to prove that the vehicles were under the dominion control of the assessee-company and were utilized for its business purpose - The contention of the assessee is that the vehicles were utilized for business purpose and the assessee-company has shown it in block of assets - this contention of the assessee is not considered by the authorities – Relying upon Mysore Minerals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax [1999 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court] – Ao is directed to delete the addition – Decided in favour of Assessee.
|