Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1370 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance on account of interest - Held that:- We find that the assessee has its own share capital and reserves amounting to ₹ 188.89 crore. As against that, only sum of ₹ 24.19 crore was given as interest free loan to subsidiary companies. The amount of share capital and reserves is many times higher than the amount of interest free loan given to subsidiary companies. Guided by the ratio laid down in Tin Box Company [2002 (11) TMI 75 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and that of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.[2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting this disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of depreciation on assets which were received without any consideration - AO's view point is that the actual written down value of the assets in the hands of the Society was not the book value assigned to it and the book value was only a notional or artificial value and the real cost was actually Nil - Held that:- Where any income has been applied for the purchase of assets on which exemption has been granted, then, no separate claim by way of depreciation in respect of such assets can be allowed in the same or any other year. In fact, this is the view point canvassed by the Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim of depreciation. However, it is important to note that sub-section (6) has been inserted to section 11 w.e.f. 01.04.2015. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in DIT (E) vs. Indraprastha Cancer Society (2014 (11) TMI 733 - DELHI HIGH COURT) has held that insertion of sub- section (6) to section 11 is prospective and, hence, no disallowance on account of depreciation can be made in years prior to the assessment year 2015-16. Also been brought to our notice that though the assets were acquired by the assessee company in an earlier year, but, the disallowance on account of depreciation was never made in the past. It was also stated that the assessments for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08 were reopened but the ld. CIT(A) quashed the reopening. The ld. AR submitted that the quashing of reassessment by the ld. CIT(A) has been accepted by the Revenue and no further appeal was filed to the Tribunal. This contention has not been controverted by the ld. DR. This shows that such depreciation has been allowed to the assessee in all earlier years. - Decided against revenue
|