Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 931 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reassessment proceedings – DTAA between India and Thailand - Held that:- There is no new material or tangible evidence in the hands of the Revenue - It was only based on a change of opinion that reopening was resorted to - That a reopening cannot be done based on a change of opinion – Relying upon CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Revenue has no case that assessee had failed to disclose truly and fully any particulars necessary for its assessment - proviso to Section 147 is squarely applicable - Reopening done based on change of opinion after four years from the end of the assessment year could not be held as valid - The reopening and resultant reassessment are quashed – Decided in favour of Assessee. Revision u/s 263 - Allowance of rural bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act - Held that:- The decision in Indian Overseas Bank v. Dy. CIT [2014 (2) TMI 930 - ITAT CHENNAI ] followed - There is always a possibility that an asset, which is fully recoverable, may not be so at future date - possibility of happening of such a contingency cannot be a sufficient reason to consider a provision made on standard assets also as a provision for bad and doubtful debts - claim of the assessee that provision for standard assets also has to be considered for applying the condition set out under Section 36(1)(viia) is not in accordance with law - a cryptic order of the Assessing Officer by itself may not show that there was no thought given by him on a claim of the assessee - here there was no enquiry made during the course of assessment proceedings - "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" is a term of wide import and not confined to loss of tax - An order without application of mind is definitely prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - We are in agreement with ld. CIT that the order of Assessing Officer was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of Revenue – Decided against Assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w Rule 8D of the Rules – Held that:- The decision in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] followed - Rule 8D could not be applied for assessment year - even after the application of Rule 8D, disallowance under Section 14A could be made – the matter remitted back to the AO for Re-adjudication – Decided in favour of Assessee. Depreciation on UPS claimed – Held that:- The decision in Indian Overseas Bank v. Dy. CIT [2014 (2) TMI 930 - ITAT CHENNAI ] followed - depreciation @ 60% granted by treating UPS as part of computer hardware - depreciation @ 60% on UPS is allowed – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. Double Income Taxation Relief (DITR) allowed - Held that:- The decision in Indian Overseas Bank v. Dy. CIT [2014 (2) TMI 930 - ITAT CHENNAI ] followed - The Tribunal need not refer it to the Assessing Officer as well just to see and pass an order - The Tribunal clearly directed the Assessing Officer to enquire into the existence of a DTAA between India and Bangkok - "Enquiry" means to investigate and apply the same - the Assessing Officer has rightly investigated and applied the same and decided the issue – The order of the CIT(A) set aside – Decided in favour of Revenue.
|