Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1503 - AT - Income TaxAdditional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) - HELD THAT:- Issue squarely covered in favour of the assessee inter alia by the decision of coordinate benches of this Tribunal in the case of M. Satish Kumar (supra) and Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd. [2012 (11) TMI 215 - ITAT CHENNAI] as well as by the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case Hi Tech Arai Ltd. [2009 (9) TMI 60 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and that of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court Gold Co. Ltd.[2014 (9) TMI 1115 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] . The learned DR, on the other hand, has not been able to bring to our notice any judicial pronouncements on this issue either of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court or any other High Court which is in favour of the revenue. We, therefore, respectfully follow the aforesaid judicial pronouncements cited by the learned counsel for the assessee which are in favour of the assessee and delete the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) on account of assessee’s claim for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia). Ground no 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 are accordingly allowed. Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- Provision of sub-section (2) of section 14A which stipulates that the Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under the Act in accordance with such method as may be prescribed (Rule 8D) if the Assessing Officer having regard to the accounts of the assessee is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. AO thus was required to record his dissatisfaction with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income before invoking Rule 8D and since there was no such dissatisfaction recorded by the AO as agreed even by the Ld. DR, we find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the disallowance under section 14A made by applying Rule 8D is not sustainable. We, therefore, delete the disallowance made by the A.O. under section 14A read with Rule 8D and sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of payment of ERPC charges without deduction of tax at source - HELD THAT:- This issue thus now stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 [2016 (5) TMI 1104 - ITAT KOLKATA] and respectfully following the same, we uphold the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A) deleting the disallowance made by the A.O. under section 40(a)(ia) on account of payment of ERPC charges
|