Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1204 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of mutation of land - Held that:- These payments are in the nature of land revenue charges of lands, which prima facie appears to be related to agricultural land. If these expenses are incurred related to agricultural land, then, in our opinion, such land revenue charges paid are not in any manner incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business, as income from agricultural activity is exempted from Income-tax. The letters issued by the land revenue authorities demanding land revenue, have been written in “Bengali” language & script and no English translation has been filed, thus, we are not able to decide with certainty whether the land in respect of which payment has been made, is agricultural land. The Ld. CIT(A) has also not discussed these documents in his order before arriving at conclusion that these expenses are revenue in nature. In such circumstances, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh. Allowability of software expenses - nature of expenditure - Held that:- In the instant case, we find that the issue before us is in respect of the custom duty of SAP software purchased by the assessee. No details have either been provided by the lower authorities or by the assessee as how the expenditure incurred on purchase of SAP has been dealt by the Assessing Officer. Further, there are no facts available on record as in which fields of the business activity, the said SAP software has been used by the assessee. For determining, whether the expenditure incurred on the software is capital expenditure of revenue expenditure in view of the decision in the case of Asahi India Safety Glass Limited (2011 (11) TMI 2 - DELHI HIGH COURT ), above facts are crucial and in absence of which, the issue cannot be decided judiciously. Thus restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh in accordance with law. Addition u/s 14A - Held that:- By no stretch of imagination can Section 14A or Rule 8D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in Section 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure “incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income”. This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case. See Joint Investment Pvt. Limited Vs CIT [2015 (3) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] Claim of refund of dividend distribution tax paid by the company amalgamated with the assessee - Held that:- If the Assessing Officer had not adjudicated the issue, the CIT(A) should have directed him to dispose off the application of the assessee. Though the issue in dispute is not part of the income assessment of the assessee, however, in the interest of natural justice, we direct the Assessing Officer to dispose off the application of the assessee dated 18/04/2012, seeking a refund of excess payment of dividend distribution tax, in accordance with law. Accordingly, ground No. 1 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Not allowing credit of dividend distribution tax paid - Held that:- This issue of credit of the dividend distribution tax paid by M/s Greenfield Commercial Private Limited has been raised first time before us and no facts are available on record. We are of the opinion that if the tax has been paid by the assessee than it is eligible for getting credit of the tax paid in accordance with law and the Revenue cannot hold the amount in unjust manner with it. Though the issue is not emanating from the impugned order, in the interest of justice, we direct the Assessing Officer to consider the request of the assessee for allowing credit of the dividend distribution tax paid by M/s Greenfield Commercial Private Limited, in accordance with law. Amount paid to “DLF Golf Club” towards membership as refundable security - allowable business expenditure - Held that:- The amount of security deposit has been admitted by the assessee as refundable, which in our opinion cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure, accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee.
|