Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 216 - HC - Income TaxAccrual of interest - Disallowance of interest not charged on debit balance? - Tribunal upholding the order of CIT (A) who deleted the disallowance - Held that:- The issue has been discussed by the ITAT in paragraph 49 and 50 in which it has given reasons for upholding the findings of CIT (A). The issue is also covered Inter party in CIT v. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd.[2005 (4) TMI 567 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of the assessee. Addition on account of sale of baggasses at lower rate than market rate to tis sister concern - Tribunal upholding the order of CIT (A) who deleted the disallowance - Held that:- No material to record finding that market price of baggasse was ₹ 18/- throughout the year in the relevant financial year, to hold that the agreement between the appellant and M/s U.P. Straw & Agro Products Ltd. was not a genuine transaction. The agreement was not between the parties before the accounting year to ensure continuous supply of bagasses to sister concern. Any interruption in supply could have affected the manufacturing process of the purchaser company. The rates of sale given by the A.O. ranged between ₹ 12.41 to ₹ 18/- per qtl. in the financial year 1987-88. The bagasse is a byproduct of which prices fluctuate during the year. If there was agreement to the sister concern for bulk supply, which was entered into prior to the accounting year at ₹ 10/- per qtl., it cannot be said that the agreement was not genuine or that price was fixed to suppress the turn over of sale and the resultant profits. The findings recorded by ITAT and the circumstances in which the rate of ₹ 10/- per qtl. was found to be reasonable are essentially findings of fact, which do not call for interference by the Court - Decided in favour of assessee. Depreciation booked in the P/L account - Tribunal upholding the order of CIT (A), who directed the Assessing Officer not to disturb the depreciation booked in the P/L account while the depreciation on revalued of asset in not allowable for the purpose of computation of income u/s 115J - Held that:- The question is covered by the judgment of this Court in CIT, Bareilly v. Rampur Distillery and Chemicals Ltd. (2013 (1) TMI 59 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ) wherein held that the Tribunal did not commit any error in law in allowing the depreciation on the revaluation reserve, which is a prescribed and statutory method of accounting, and by which the book profits do not get reduced, giving any added benefit to the companies including Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) companies. - Decided in favour of the assessee
|