Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 737 - AT - Income TaxEligibility for deduction u/s 10B - whether DEPB benefits are eligible for deduction under Section 10B? - Held that:- The export benefits of DEPB interest should be considered for the purposes of deduction under Section 10B of the Act. Therefore we direct the Assessing Officer to consider the export benefits for the purpose of deduction under Section 10B of the Act. See Principle Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Universal Precision Screws [2015 (10) TMI 951 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and CIT Vs. XLNC Fashions [2015 (10) TMI 1086 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and CIT Vs. Hritnik Exports Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (10) TMI 1009 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that the business profit should be considered for the purpose of deduction under Section 10B - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of interest for the investments made on the subsidiary company of the respondent assessee company - Held that:- Aggregate share capital and free reserve was stood at ₹ 15,57,04,538/- . The aggregate share capital are more than the investments made in the subsidiary company and it should be presumed that the investments are made out of the interest free funds and therefore, this ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is also dismissed. See Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2008 (2) TMI 19 - Supreme Court] - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance on the ground that the interest incurred till the date of assets put to use should be disallowed - Held that:- As the assessee company on its own made disallowance of ₹ 7,35,226/- in respect of the interest liability incurred for the acquisition of assets till the date the assets were put to use. This contention had not been dislodged by the Department Representative and no further disallowance is called for. This ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.- Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance under the provisions of Section 14A -contention of the respondent assessee that no expenditure was incurred to earn the dividend income - Held that:- The Assessing Officer without giving any reason as to how he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the respondent assessee company had proceeded with the disallowance. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT [2011 (11) TMI 267 - Delhi High Court] held that no such disallowance was permissible without recording the reasons as to how the claim is incorrect. Therefore, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed.- Decided in favour of assessee.
|