Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1017 - AT - Income TaxDeduction under section 80-IA on windmills - assessee's income being in the negative after set-off of the losses of other units - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that:- In view of decisions of CIT v. Macmillan India Ltd. [2007 (2) TMI 128 - HIGH COURT, MADRAS], CIT v. Rathore Brothers [2001 (10) TMI 72 - MADRAS High Court], CIT v. Suresh B. Mehta [2007 (1) TMI 134 - MADRAS High Court] and CIT v. M. Gani and Co. [2008 (2) TMI 129 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] each of the unit had to be separately considered for working out deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB or 80HHC of the Act, once separate accounts were being maintained and there was no interlacing and interdependence. In the given case before us, the assessee had positive gross total income. Therefore, each undertaking had to be considered separately for working out deduction under section 80-IA of the Act, since the gross total income was positive. We are of the opinion that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in giving such directions. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had directed the Assessing Officer to treat the windmills as a separate undertaking for the purpose of calculating deduction under section 80-IA of the Act though the power generated was captively consumed. The question of set-off of notional losses prior to the initial year of claim does not arise in view of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010 (3) TMI 860 - Madras High Court] . The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had rightly relied on this decision for taking a view in favor of the assessee. The learned Departmental representative was unable to produce order of any higher authority which could disturb the view taken by the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. - Decided in favour of assessee. Levy of interest under section 234D - Held that:- The assessee's grievance regarding levy of interest under section 234D cannot be accepted in view of the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Infrastructure Development Finance Co. Ltd. [2011 (9) TMI 591 - Madras High Court] assessments having been completed after first of June, 2003. - Decided against assessee. Disallowance under section 14A - Held that:- Disallowance under section 14A might still be required depending on the facts and circumstances. However, we do not find any discussion on any claim made by the assessee with regard to expenses incurred or not incurred by it for earning the dividend income, in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer had simply made a disallowance taking 6 per cent. of the income as expenditure. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter requires a re-visit by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, set aside the orders of authorities below and remit the issue regarding disallowance under section 14A back to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh and decide in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance of claim for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) - Held that:-. In the case before us also, it is not the question of any amount being included as income by inadvertence. The assessee had not chosen to make additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, claim having not been made through a revised return cannot be accepted. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in not considering such claim raised by the assessee. - Decided against assessee. Non-exclusion of interest receivable from its Malaysian subsidiary company - Held that:- Without doubt, the assessee had included in its income, interest from its Malaysian subsidiary. The claim that it was not received and if received withholding tax would be deducted by the Malaysian company, were all new pleadings made during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee never cared to file a revised return. In our opinion, for the same reasons, such a claim could not have been accepted. This was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). - Decided against assessee.
|