Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 602 - AT - Income TaxDis allowance u/s 14A - further disallowance in terms of rule 8D - Interest to the extent of ₹ 14,82,540/- as attributable to earning of dividend income on mutual fund - Held that:- The facts for the year under consideration are exactly similar to those present for Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2007-08, i.e., the immediately preceding and the immediately succeeding Assessment Years. The Tribunal has held Rule 8D of the Income- tax Rules to be prospective in nature and the assessee’s challenge of CIT (A)’s action in increasing the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act without pointing out any valid basis for such further disallowance was upheld. The reliance by the assessee on ‘Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT’(2011 (11) TMI 267 - Delhi High Court ) and ‘Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs. DCIT’ (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) in this regard is correct. - Decided in favour of assessee. Depreciation claim rejected - Held that:- Remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, before whom, the assessee has agreed to file evidence of user of the property in question. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Treatment of income - treat income of ₹ 4,04,382/- as capital loss as against business loss - Held that:- For Assessment Year 2005-06, under circumstances similar to those present for the year under consideration, the Tribunal has upheld the CIT (A)’s direction for treating the loss as a capital loss. Respectfully following the said Tribunal order, in the assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2005-06, Ground No.2 raised by the department is rejected. - Decided in favour of assessee. Unexplained credits in the bank account - CIT (A) deleted the addition by accepting the additional evidence filed by the assessee - Held that:- CIT (A) correctly arrived at the conclusion that the amount of ₹ 4,91,02,322/- had been received by the assessee company from Hotline CPT Ltd. On the basis thereof, it was correctly observed that this amount could not be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act. The department has not been able to successfully refute the well reasoned findings of fact recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) in this regard and we hereby confirm the same. - Decided in favour of asssessee.
|