Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 987 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194I - disallowance of Compensation expenses paid on the ground of non deduction of TDS u/s. 40(a)(ia) - assessee has filed additional evidence in the fact that recipient of the amount Shri Sureshchandra J. Shah has shown the amount received in his return of income and paid tax thereon - Held that:- In view of Second Proviso to 40(a)(ia) of the Act inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004, w.e.f. 01.04.2004, which has been held to be retrospective in effect by the Agra Bench of the tribunal in the case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs. ACIT [2014 (6) TMI 79 - ITAT AGRA], no disallowance can be made in the hands of the assessee of the expenditure claimed by the assessee. Therefore, we accept the additional evidence filed by the assessee and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for readjudication of the issue afresh after taking into consideration the additional evidences filed by the assessee as per law. As a result, this ground of appeal as well as additional ground is allowed for statistical purpose. Amount received on sale of sales tax entitlements excluded from the profit derived from eligible unit being wind mill - Held that:- As decided in assessee [2014 (9) TMI 131 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] as held that the main purpose of the resolution was to modernize industries, which ordinarily would come at a considerable cost, particularly when such industries were located in under-developed areas - The industries will find it difficult without Government's incentive to undertake large-scale modernization with the use of modern technology.the benefit, though computed in terms of the Sales Tax liability in the hands of the recipient, the same was not mean to give any benefit on day-to-day functioning of the business, or for making the industry more profitable - The principle aim of the scheme was to cover the capital outlay already made by the assessee in undertaking special modernization of its existing industry – the matter is remitted back for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80IA for profits derived from electricity generation from wind mill at Bhogat, Gujarat - Held that:- As decided in assessee [2014 (9) TMI 131 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] tribunal has not erred in holding that there was no rectification possible u/s 80-I for reasons somewhat different from those which prevailed with the Tribunal - There was no carry forward of allowable deductions under the head depreciation or development rebate which needed to be absorbed against the income of the current year – re-computation of income for the purpose of computing permissible deduction u/s 80-I for the new industrial undertaking was not required in the present case - the assessee has not suffered any loss in the year - no brought forward loss or depreciation could be reduced for determining the amount in which the deduction is to be allowed u/s. 80IA of the Act – Decided in favour of assessee. Treatment of the amount received on sales tax entitlement as capital receipt - Held that:- Set aside the order of lower authorities on the issue and remit this issue to the file of A.O. for re-adjudicating the issue as per direction of Tribunal given [2014 (9) TMI 131 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] Disallowance of excessive expenditure claimed u/s.40A(2)(b) - Held that:- Similar issue arose in A.Y. 06-07 [2010 (3) TMI 1236 - ITAT AHEMDABAD] as held that it is nobody's case that the transactions of purchase from the sister concerns were not bona fide transactions nor is it the case of the Revenue that these were sham transactions or that the price paid in respect of each of these transactions by the assessee was other than the one set out in the books of account of the assessee. Under these circumstances it appears to us that the taxing authorities had no right to substitute the average price in place of the price or value agreed to between the parties to the transaction, since the transaction has not been shown to be a sham one nor has it been shown that the value was not the value in the books of account.In view of the foregoing, we are not inclined to agree with the reasons of the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, delete the disallowance made by the AO - Decided against revenue
|