Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 360 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80 IB - OEPB licenses utilized during the year for duty free import of raw materials - Focus market incentive - Held that:- Assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80IB in relation to incomes by way of DEPB investments and focus market incentives the decision of in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT, [2009 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT] covers the controversy in favour of the Revenue. Deduction under section 80IB in relation to sundry income the assessee fairly conceded that the said income has been rightly held to be “not derived from” the industrial undertaking and accordingly the denial of deductions under section 80IB of the Act is hereby affirmed. - Decided against assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- At the time of hearing the only plea set up by the appellant is that the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee in its computation of income amounting to ₹ 19,64,974/- out of interest paid for purchase of investment and SEBI filing fees for open offer for investments in shares of M/s. Uniflex Cables Ltd. be reduced from the total disallowance worked out by the AO. Consequently, we set aside the matter to the file of AO, who shall allow appropriate relief to the assessee on this aspect. - Decided in favour of assessee by way of remand. Exemption u/s 54G denied - additional evidence submitted - Held that:- On the basis of the material submitted, the assessee does not intend to make out any new case, but the it merely seek to corroborate its earlier stand. Some of the additional evidences, for instance, confirmations from the transport contractor, engineering contractor, etc. are third party independent evidences and in our view it would be appropriate to consider the same for the purpose of adjudicating the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54G of the Act. In our considered opinion, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the avowed object of Rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules would be sub-served if the additional evidences are admitted in order to appropriately adjudicate assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54G of the Act. We hold so. So however, since the aforesaid evidences/material was not before the lower authorities, it would be in the fitness of things that the issues relating to assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54G of the Act is restored back to the file of AO, who shall revisit the same as per law after taking into consideration the aforestated additional evidence - Decided in favour of assessee by way of remand.
|