Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 1186 - AT - Income TaxComputation of deduction u/s. 10A / 10B - Exclusion of Telecommunication Charges and expenditure in foreign Currency from export turnover - CIT-A directed AO to exclude the telecommunication expenses Chennai unit - II and Bangalore strategic business Unit from the total turnover as well - HELD THAT:- Whatever was argued by the assessee in the relevant grounds before the CIT(A stands accepted. In other words, there is no justification on assessee’s part to raise the grounds in question before the ‘tribunal’. The purpose of reproducing the entire relevant portion of the CIT(A)’s order is to support our observations that there is no relevant argument which remains to be accepted. The assessee raises no plea before us that the relevant arguments were either not considered or accepted by the CIT(A). In these circumstances, we find these grounds to be entirely misconceived. The same are accordingly rejected. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r.8D - is if at all section 14A is held applicable; whether or not the impugned disallowance can be computed under rule 8D which was notified on 24.3.2008? - HELD THAT:- We draw support from the order of the Chennai ‘tribunal’ in TVS Investments Ltd. [2013 (1) TMI 786 - ITAT CHENNAI] to hold that rule 8D could not have been invoked for computing the disallowance from 1.4.2007 to 23.3.2008 inspite of being applicable with effect from assessment year 2008-09. That being the case, we proceed to make disallowance u/s 14A by ‘reasonable’ computation and deem it fit that lumpsum disallowance of ₹ 35 lakhs would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the assessee’s arguments are partly accepted. Disallowance/addition of expenditure incurred towards current repairs - HELD THAT:- As in assessment year 2004-05, this issue had arisen in assessee’s own case which was remanded back to the AO. On a query being put up by the bench, it informs us that the Assessing Officer is yet to pass consequential order. In these circumstances, by following the order of the ‘tribunal’ for assessment year 2004-05, we restore this issue also to the file of AO for decision afresh after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. This ground is accepted for statistical purposes. Disallowance of capitalization of software expenses - HELD THAT:- As the assessee submits that the authorities below have wrongly capitalized the impugned software expenditure. In support, it has neither filed any cogent evidence nor case law against the special bench decision in Amway India Enterprises [2008 (2) TMI 454 - ITAT DELHI-C] - the impugned capitalization cannot be interfered with on mere asking. Accordingly, we affirm the findings of the CIT(A) in capitalizing the software expenses.
|