Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1272 - AT - Income TaxAdjusting the unabsorbed depreciation while computing the book profit u/s 115JB - MAT application - Held that:- We find that the amounts of brought forward losses are greater than the amount of unabsorbed depreciation. The assessee is entitled for unabsorbed depreciation amounting to ₹37,35,12,000/- only. There was a profit in the assessment year 2002-03 for ₹ 2,79,09,000/- before the claim of the depreciation pertaining to that AY 2002-03. However, in the year under consideration the assessee had shown brought forward business losses of ₹ 1,60,85,45,000/- and unabsorbed depreciation of ₹ 37,35,12,000/-. Unabsorbed depreciation is lower than the amount of brought forward losses therefore in our considered view the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of unabsorbed depreciation while determining the profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The amount of unabsorbed depreciation is inclusive of the deprecation pertaining to the assessment year 2002-03 for ₹ 6,67,29,000/-. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the amount of unabsorbed depreciation ₹ 6,67,29,000/- is not eligible for deduction while that determining the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. - Decided against revenue. No hesitation to hold that the assessee can claim the deduction either of brought forward losses or unabsorbed depreciation whichever is less as per the books of accounts. Disallowing depreciation @ 25% on computers instead of 60% claimed by it - Held that:- In the instant case, the issue relates to the rate of depreciation claimed by assessee on computer(s) and its accessories. The assessee in the immediate preceding Assessment Year i.e. 2003-04 claimed depreciation on computers @ 60% whereas the AO allowed depreciation @ 25% on the computers(s) on the ground that sufficient documentary evidence were not produced by the assessee during assessment proceedings pertaining to the AY 2003-04. The assessee has filed the documents before Ld. CIT(A) which is still sub judice. The AO on the basis of disallowance made in the immediate preceding AY also made similar disallowance on the opening WDV in the year under consideration. On perusal of impugned appellate order, we note that Ld. CIT(A) in the immediate preceding AY i.e. 2003-04 has directed the AO to verify the necessary records and adjudicate the issue accordingly. As none of the party has brought to our notice about the outcome of the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) in the immediate preceding Assessment Year.We also note that the ld. CIT-A in the instant case has given very clear & unambiguous direction for adjudication of the impugned issue of depreciation. Therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A). Ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Disallowance paid to LIC on account of contribution in respect of gratuity fund - Held that:- The impugned issue is duly covered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taxtool [2009 (9) TMI 66 - SUPREME COURT] Interest u/s 234B is not leviable if taxes paid under the provision of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) u/s. 115JB - Held that:- The issue stand covered against the assessee and in favour of Revenue by the judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JCIT vs. Rolta India Ltd.[2011 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Entitlement to choose 10 consecutive years out of 15 years for deduction u/s 80-IA and consequently allowing deduction @ 100% of the profit - Held that:- We hold that the assessee has the discretion to choose the initial year out of the block of 15 years. Thereafter the assessee would claim the deduction as per the provision of section 80-IA for the remaining year but subject to the block of 15 years. - Decided in favour of assessee. Allowing certain receipts as deduction u/s 80-IA - Held that:- The facts of the present case are identical to the case BSNL (2015 (12) TMI 1531 - ITAT DELHI) which was decided in favour of assessee. In the case on hand the AO made the disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80-IA of the Act in respect of certain receipts/ income i.e. Interest on Money deposited, Provision/liabilities written back, Bad debt recovery, Bounce cheque charges, Cell site sharing revenue and other income. Thus respectfully following in the case of BSNL (Supra) we direct the AO to allow the deduction under section 80-IA in respect of its receipts. Thus the ground of appeals raised by the Revenue is dismissed and the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee is allowed. Non-deduction of TDS on domestic roaming charges under section 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- We hold that the payment of roaming charges does not fall under the ambit of TDS provisions either u/s.194C/194I or 194J and hence we have no hesitation in directing the Learned Assessing Officer to delete the addition made u/s. 40(a)(ia) on this account.
|