Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 458 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - Held that:- CIT (A) had judiciously considered the issue and held the matter against the assessee because reopening was within a period of four years and various omissions and discrepancies was revealed from the assessment order based on which the Ld. Assessing Officer had initiated proceedings U/s. 147 of the Act. Therefore we hereby uphold the order of the Ld. CIT (A). - Decided against assessee. Disallowance of provision for wage arrears to staff - Held that:- CIT (A) following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Overseas Bank(IOB) for the assessment year 2005-06 [2013 (3) TMI 643 - ITAT CHENNAI] held that the adhoc provision made shall be allowed as deduction in the year of payment and not in the year provision is made. Since the Ld. CIT (A) has followed the decision of the Tribunal, we do not find it necessary to interfere with his order. Accordingly, this issue is held against the assessee. Allowing depreciation on UPS at 60% instead of 80% claimed by the assessee - Held that:- the appellant is entitled to depreciation @ 60% by treating the UPS under the category of computer. Since the Ld. CIT (A) has followed the decision of the Tribunal, we do not find it necessary to interfere with his order. Disallowance made U/s.14A read with Rule 8D - Held that:- The whole purpose of enactment of Section.14A of the Act is to disallow certain expenses which are attributable to exempt income. The assessee bank due to various statutory requirements and commercial reasons is bound to make investments in securities and equity shares etc., which earn dividend that, are exempt from income. For making such investments obviously the financial wizards employed by the assessee company has to make tremendous exercise to determine as to what securities /equity shares etc., has to be purchased by the assessee to optimize the economical functioning of the assessee. This incurs cost. A portion of this cost has to be apportioned towards the factor of exempt income whether it is earned during the year or otherwise. For determining such apportionment of cost, Income Tax Rules are framed which we find in Rule-8D. However, Rule-8D has come into effect from 24.03.2008. Therefore for the relevant assessment year, Rule-8D is not applicable. In these circumstances, Chennai Bench of the Tribunal on many occasions has held 3% of earned exempt income can be estimated for making disallowance for the purpose of Section.14A of the Act Accordingly, we hereby direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to disallow 3% of earned exempt income for making disallowance U/s.14A of the Act. Applicability of Section-115JB - Held that:- As the amendment to Section.115JB by the Finance Act, 2012 will be applicable only from the A.Y.2013-14, we uphold the claim of the assessee that provisions of section 115 JB will not be applicable to the assessee bank and set aside the assessment made U/s.115JB on the assessee company Treatment of Brokerage paid at the time of acquisition of investments in securities as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure- Held that:- Before us, the nature of investments as to whether the investment made amounts to capital expenditure or revenue expenditure is not explained by both the parties. Moreover the decision cited by the Ld. CIT (A) and the assessee were not brought to the notice of Ld. Assessing Officer therefore in the interest of justice we remit back the matter to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer for denovo consideration and to pass appropriate order as per law and merit and after duly examining the decisions cited by the assessee as well as the Ld. CIT (A). Treatment to the loss on sale of investments - CIT(A) treated as Revenue expenditure by holding the investments to be stock in trade while as the investments related to HTM category and therefore, it amount to capital loss - Held that:- While adjudicating ground No. 2B(vi) herein above we have made it clear that, before us the nature of investments as to whether the investments made amounts to capital expenditure or revenue expenditure is not explained by both the parties. Moreover the decision cited by the Ld. CIT (A) and the assessee were not brought to the notice of Ld. Assessing Officer. Hence we hereby remit back the matter to the file of Ld. A.O for fresh consideration to pass appropriate order as per law and merit and after duly examining the decisions cited by the assessee as well as the Ld. CIT (A).
|