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 1460 - AT - Income TaxAdditional depreciation on Plant & Machinery - assessee engaged in the business of mining - manufacturing activity - Held that:- In the instant case the assessee is engaged in the business of mining of Manganese ore & Iron ore and mining is constructed as a manufacturing activity. Respectfully following the decision of CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd [2004 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT], case of CIT v/s G.S. Atwal &. Co [2001 (2) TMI 32 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and Integrated Coal Mining Ltd. vis DCIT [2015 (12) TMI 1326 - ITAT KOLKATA] I held that the appellant is engaged in the business of mining which amounts to manufacturing and hence entitled for additional depreciation u/s 32(1) (iia) of the I.T.Act. - decided in favour of assessee Depreciation on land & site development - Order of CIT(A) in remanding the issue to the file of AO for its verification - Held that:- According to CIT(A), the assessee is entitled to depreciation @ 10% by holding the building as contemplated in Appendix I of Income Tax Rules including roads, bridges, culverts, wells and tubewells. The CIT(A) placed reliance in the case of Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1992 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] which held that roads constructed by the assessee in factory premises forms of part of building. The CIT(A) further placed reliance in the case of HMT Ltd. [1992 (7) TMI 58 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] which held that roads, walls and fences are regarded as part of building. Therefore, taking into consideration the law laid down we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on land and site development expenditure. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in remanding the issue to the file of AO for its verification. MAT - addition made on account of expenditure in earning exempt income u/s 115JB - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case admittedly, there was no income earned during the year under consideration from the aforesaid investment. It is a settled law that no disallowance shall be warranted under the provision of Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D if there is under the year consideration. - decided in favour of assessee Expenses incurred on club entrance fees and subscriptions - allowable busniss expenditure - Held that:- AR did not bring on record any evidences before us atleast to show that the said expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of development of its business. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and uphold the view of the AO in making the said addition - decided in favour of revenue Disallowance u/s 14A with Rule 8D will not apply where no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year - Held that:- e CIT(A) taking into consideration the submissions of the assessee and found satisfied that the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the year under consideration. Therefore, placing reliance on the decision of REI Agro Ltd. [2013 (9) TMI 156 - ITAT KOLKATA] held that when there is no tax free income, no disallowance could be made. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is justified. - decided in favour of assessee Addition on delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF & ESI by invoking provision of section 43B - Held that:- It is noted from the impugned order that CIT(A) found satisfied that the employee’s contribution was relating to PF & ESI was deposited before due date of filing of return of income. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in deleting addition - decided against revenue
|