Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 932 - AT - Income TaxCarry forward and adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation after the lapse of 8 (eight) assessment years - Held that:- Once Circular No.14 of 2001 clarified that the restriction of 8 years for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation had been dispensed with, the unabsorbed depreciation got carried forward to next A.Y.2002-03 and became a part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years, without any limit whatsoever. See assessee's own case [2016 (1) TMI 1346 - ITAT MUMBAI] and General Motors India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2012 (8) TMI 714 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition u/s 14A - AR contended that the investments made in joint ventures were strategic in nature and had to be excluded while arriving at the disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- As correctly noted by CIT(A), the assessee failed the refute the findings of Tax Auditor in this regard and could not demonstrate that it did not incur any direct expenditure to make the investments. Therefore, the issue, in our opinion, remains inconclusive and requires reconsideration by Ld. AO. Hence, the matter is remitted back to Ld. AO to re-appreciate the factual matrix with a direction to assessee to justify his stand forthwith, failing which the Ld. AO shall be at liberty to decide the same as per law on the basis of material available on record. This ground stands allowed for statistical purposes. Claim of Loan Processing Fees - Held that:- Undisputedly, the sale of investments was chargeable under the head ‘Capital Gains’. In such a scenario, we find that the reliance of Ld. AR on various case laws could not help assessee since the fact of those cases reveals that the loan was utilized for the purpose of capital expansion of assessee’s business and the purpose of the same was capital expenditure. This vital fact is missing in the present case.A lso not evident from material on record that the assessee did not claim the balance deferred revenue expenditure in subsequent years on proportionate basis. Therefore, this matter is also remanded back to the Ld. AO for re-appreciation of the factual matrix. Adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A in computation of book profit u/s 115JB - Held that:- Adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A was not required to be made in Book Profits for the purpose of Section 115JB. The ground of assessee’s appeal stands allowed to that extent. See ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI]
|