Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1457 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance under Sec. 14A r.w.Rule 8D(2) - investments in sister company and the contention that own funds are generated out of business and no borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of investments - Held that:- The assessee company made investments on Business expediency and no income has been generated by sister/group company. The provisions of Sec. 14A r.w.r. 8D are mandatorily applicable from assessment year 2008-09 but while calculating the disallowance u/sec. Rule 8D(2), the ld. Assessing Officer shall consider that the investments in group/ sister company are made in ordinary course of business. See case of DCIT vs. M/s. Regen Powertech (P) Ltd. [2016 (10) TMI 522 - ITAT CHENNAI] We remit the disputed issue to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer to verify and exclude the investments in group companies for the purposes of calculation of disallowance under Sec. 14A r.w.Rule 8D(2) and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of being heard before passing the order on merits. The ground of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. Additional depreciation on Plant and Machinery disallowed - no manufacturing activity - Held that:- We perused the order of ld. Assessing Officer and activity of the assessee company engaged in the Business of manufacturing of readymix concrete and once the raw material is mixed which cannot be reconverted in shape. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. N.C. Budharaja & Company (1993 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT) has held that readymade mixed concrete cannot be in the nature of manufacture - decided in favour of revenue Claim of deduction under Section 80-IA in respect of windmills - contention of the Department before the Tribunal that the Revenue has not accepted the judgment of Madras High Court and an appeal has already been filed along with Special Leave Petition and the same is pending before the Apex Court - Held that:- This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that mere pendency of Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court cannot be a reason to take a different view. The judgment of Madras High Court is binding on all the authorities in the State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee by following the binding judgment of Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd (2010 (3) TMI 860 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ). - decided against revenue
|