Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 517 - AT - Income TaxAllowance of remaining portion of 50% of additional depreciation u/s 32(i)(iia) of the Act on assets put to use for a period of less than 180 days - Held that:- This issue is already settled in favour of assessee in its own case for assessment year 2010-11 [2018 (8) TMI 1639 - ITAT KOLKATA] as held he manner in which the Revenue chose to interpret the provision, as it stood prior to its amendment would lead to discrimination, in respect of plant and machinery, which was used for less than 180 days, as against that, which was used for 180 days or more - upon a plain reading of the unamended provision, it could not be said that the Assessee could not claim balance depreciation in the A. Y. , which follows the A. Y. , in which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days. - decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of lease rental expenditure - Held that:- Similar claim of deduction was indeed allowed by the assessee in all the scrutiny assessments up to assessment year 2008-09. Hence, there is no reason for the revenue to take a divergent stand during the year under appeal. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhaswami Satsang [1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT]. In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance Addition u/s 14A - Held that:- Referring to case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]we hold that no disallowance under second limb of Rule 8D(2) could be made in the facts and circumstances of the case. With regard to third limb of Rule 8D(2), we hold that only investments that had yielded dividend income are to be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance under third limb of Rule 8D(2), which would be in consonance with the decision of this Tribunal in REI Agro Ltd. [2013 (9) TMI 156 - ITAT KOLKATA]. Accordingly, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee in cross objection is partly allowed. Set off of long term capital loss of assessment year 2010-11 against the long term capital gain of the year under appeal - Held that:- It has already been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Manmohan Das (Deceased) (1965 (11) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT) that the eligibility of loss brought forward from earlier year for set off is to be examined by the AO only in the year in which such loss is sought to be set off against any income.Eligibility to claim set off of long term capital loss pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 of ₹ 8,75,732/- should be looked upon by the ld. AO only in the year in which decision sought to be set off against the income. Accordingly, ground no. 3 raised by the assessee in cross objection is allowed.
|