Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 605 - AT - Income TaxPrior period expenditure disallowed - Held that:- In Saurashtra Cement [1994 (10) TMI 30 - GUJARAT High Court] it has been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court that though the expenditure relates to prior period, if the liability has accrued during the year, then the expenditure has to be allowed as deduction. Also in CIT vs. Exxon Mobil Lubricants P. Ltd[2010 (9) TMI 36 - DELHI HIGH COURT] it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that when prior period income is taxed prior period expenditure cannot be disallowed. Claim of forex derivative loss - Held that:- CIT(A) in her order dated 30.06.2014 has directed the AO to obtain from the assessee the details of swap arrangements and arrive at a finding after verification. The learned CIT(A) has not allowed the forex derivates loss of ₹ 2,89,00,000/- as made out in the 2nd ground of appeal filed by the revenue. As the learned CIT(A) has specifically set aside the above issue to the file of the AO, the 2nd ground of appeal is dismissed. Claim of depreciation @ 80% by the assessee on energy efficient devices - Held that:- CIT(A) correctly having examined the Certificate dated 31st March, 2008 given by the Chartered Engineers held that the assessee rightly claimed depreciation @ 80% on these devices. Claim of depreciation on building given on rent - Held that:- CIT(A) has given a specific direction to the AO to examine the accounts and arrive at a finding after verification. The learned CIT(A) has not allowed the claim of depreciation of ₹ 1,06,53,231/- as made out in the 4th ground of appeal of the revenue. Therefore, the 4th ground of appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Allowability of interest in respect of capital WIP - Held that:- CIT(A) has not allowed the interest pertaining to capital WIP as made out in the 5th ground of appeal. Rather the learned CIT(A) has given a specific direction to the AO to examine the accounts and then arrive at a finding after verification. In view of the above, the 5th ground of appeal is dismissed. Deduction u/s 24 for repairs in respect of house property - Held that:- There is a contradiction in the version of appellant as during assessment proceedings they themselves admitted that these repair expenses are incurred for leave and license basis premises where as now during the appellate proceeding submitted that these repair expenses do not pertain to the lease out premises. In absence of any supporting evidence for the same, the reply of appellant cannot be relied upon. The appellant have not negated the observation made by the AO in the assessment order that they did reply so during the assessment proceedings by their letter dated 8.12.2010. In view of this it is of the opinion that appellant has switched over from their earlier stand without negating the facts that they did admit so before AO. In absence of any contradiction made to the same, I am of the view that action of AO to disallow proportionate expenses, looking into the fact that appellant have already deducted by making a claim under section 24 also, the addition made is upheld. - Decided against assessee.
|