Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1871 - HC - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - disallowances voluntarily made by the assessee - HELD THAT:- We are not inclined to admit the appeal. Firstly because the disputed amount itself is not very substantial and secondly, though not so clearly stated, the view of the Tribunal can as well be understood and interpreted as one holding that the facts necessary for applicability of rule 8D, did not arise in the present case. We may recall, sub-section (2) of section 14A provides that the AO would determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income if he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure. If the expenditure already voluntarily disallowed by the assessee is found to be reasonable, the Assessing Officer in any case could not have resorted to rule 8D of the Rules. Disallowance of deduction u/s 37(1) - compensation for premature termination of the lease agreement - HELD THAT:- Tribunal noted that the assessee had terminated lease and licence in respect of two warehouses from Paras Commercial Centre. The lessor deducted a sum towards compensation for premature termination of the lease agreement. The Tribunal in such facts held that the early termination of the lease was a business decision and the expenditure incurred in relation to the same was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. We find no error in the view of the Tribunal. Writing off the bad debts and claiming deduction u/s 36(1)(vi) - assessee had purchased certain assets on slump sale basis - HELD THAT:- In the process, certain debts which were part of the current assets were reduced. The assessee wrote off a sum claiming the same to be admissible under section 36(1) - Tribunal while reversing the view of the AO and CIT(A) in which it was held that in the process, the assessee was claiming double benefit, held that the assessee had not claimed any double benefit and the bad debt was required to be allowed as an admissible deduction under section 36(1) of the Act. We see no error in the view of the Tribunal. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - non-deduction of tax at source by the assessee while making payment to Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited towards leased line charges -Tribunal held that the amount in question was below ₹ 10 lakhs which was a minimum monetary limit enabling the Revenue to prefer appeal against the Commissioner's appellate orders before the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- As Revenue argues before us that the Tribunal should have seen the monetary limit of the combined appeals of the assessee as well as the Revenue arising out of the common judgment of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) pertaining to the assessee for the same assessment year. In our opinion, this question is not required to be examined in view of the fact that the decision of this court in the case of Kotak Securities Limited . [2011 (10) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has been reversed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.. [2016 (3) TMI 1026 - SUPREME COURT] - Resultantly, on the merits also, the Revenue would have no ground to succeed. Revenue appeal dismissed.
|