Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1926 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation u/s 32(1) - written down value on which depreciation was to be allowed for the year under consideration should have been higher to that extent - HELD THAT:- As decided against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in assessee’s own case i.e. Plastiblends India Ltd. v. Additional CIT [2017 (10) TMI 423 - SUPREME COURT] . DR relies on the above decision. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In the above decision, it has been held that quantum of deduction under section 80-IA is not dependent upon assessee claiming or not claiming depreciation, because under section 80-IA quantum of deduction has to be determined by computing total income from business after deducting all deductions allowable under sections 30 to 43D of the Act. Following the above decision, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Disallowance u/s 14A under Rule 8D(2)(iii) - HELD THAT:- Disallowance of other direct or indirect expenditure, the assessee has computed the disallowance by allocating the salary paid to junior accountant. We do not agree with this computation of disallowance by the assessee. It is an undisputed fact that investment is a policy decision taken by the Board of Directors at the highest level which requires lot of consultancy from various experts. Therefore, the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) becomes imperative, as the disallowance have been computed by the AO as per the applicable provisions of law. Appeal is dismissed.
|