Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 993 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80JJA denial - manufacturing - baggase / husk is not a waste but is a by-product of agri-produce processing industry which was purchased and not collected and processed or treated by the assessee, which is a prerequisite for claiming deduction under Section 80JJA - HELD THAT:- Issue is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of CIT, Pune Vs. Padma S. Bora [2012 (12) TMI 666 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . This question is therefore, not considered. Disallowance on account of employee's contribution to Provident Fund (PF), Employee's State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and Maharashtra Labour Welfare Fund - HELD THAT:- Issue covered by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT-Central Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd [2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in which it has held that the benefit of deduction of the employees' contribution to the provident fund would also be available as long as the same is made before filing of the return. This question is, therefore, not considered. Depreciation on windmills denied - assessee was not a registered owner of the windmills and it was purchasing electricity from NAV Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills Ltd (NMCOML) thus having no title / dominion and right to use the assets - HELD THAT:- Commissioner and the Tribunal concurrently came to the conclusion that the assessee had purchased windmill for total consideration of ₹ 1.10 Crores. The payments were made between August 2007 to March 2008 through bank channel. The Sales Tax Entitlement Certificate of the assessee was also accordingly modified w.e.f. 5.12.2007. Memorandum of Understanding dated 1.6.2007 under which the said machinery was acquired by the assessee was also produced on record. It was, after examination of such materials on record, the Commissioner and the Tribunal concurrently held that the assessee had in fact purchased windmill and therefore, was entitled to claim depreciation thereon. No question of law arises
|