|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 541 Records
-
2014 (6) TMI 977
Disallowances u/s 80IB - no separate books were maintained or separate balance sheet were filed claiming deduction - Held that:- Tribunal upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the disallowances relied upon its earlier order in the case of Banaskantha District Cooperative Milk Producers Union [2010 (2) TMI 1197 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] also confirmed by HC [2012 (1) TMI 310 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein on identical facts it was held that even if no separate books were maintained or separate balance sheet were filed deduction under Section 80IB of the Act cannot be denied.We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. - Decided against revenue
Disallowances under Section 80(P)(2)(d) - interest earned on the fixed deposit with Cooperative Bank and the Societies - Held that:- Considering Section 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act when the only requirement was that the income should be received from investment in Cooperative Societies and the Cooperative Bank which in the present case has been fulfilled, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in deleting disallowance under Section 80(P(2)(d) of the Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal.- Decided against revenue
-
2014 (6) TMI 976
Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - additions made in the proceedings u/s. 153A - defective notice - Held that:- The show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. The show cause notice is also bad for the reason that in the A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2009-10 the show cause notice refers to imposition of penalty u/s. 271AAA, whereas the order imposing penalty has been passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our view, the aforesaid defect cannot be said to be curable u/.s 292BB of the Act, as the defect cannot be said to be a notice which is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. See THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHS. Versus M/s MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY & OTHS. [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (6) TMI 975
Denying exemption/approval u/s.10(23C)(vi) - non maintainability of appeal being not as per the provisions of Section 253(1) of IT Act - Held that:- As in terms of the provisions of Section 253(1)(c) an order passed by Chief Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 272A is subject to appeal. As per Section 253 of IT Act, any assessee aggrieved by the orders; as listed therein, may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order. In the sub-clause, there is a list of orders against which an appeal can be filed before the Appellate Tribunal. On examination of all those clauses, we have noted that there is no provision for filing of an appeal against an order passed u/s.10(23C) of IT Act. As far as the written submissions filed by the assessee, the same are on merits of the case. But in this situation, we are not in a position to hear and decide this appeal on merits; therefore, the contentions as raised in those written submissions being beyond our jurisdiction, cannot be adjudicated upon. Few case laws have also been cited but all those judgments are passed by Hon’ble High Courts under Writ jurisdiction. Therefore, this appellant can seek redressal from that forum and not from the Tribunal. Resultantly, we hereby dismiss this appeal in limine being not maintainable before the Tribunal. - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 973
Validity of assessment - warrant of authorization issued for the search was in joint names of various individuals but separate order of assessment was passed for the assessee in whose name alone there was no search warrant - Held that:- As one of the group members of the assessee, we do not find any merit in the contention of the assessee for holding that the order of assessment was invalid on the plea that warrant of authorization issued for the search was in joint names of various individuals but separate order of assessment was passed for the assessee.
Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - addition on account long term capital gains - Held that:- We found that on protective basis, the AO has also assessed the capital gain in the assessment year 2007-08, since the amount was added in the assessment year 2006-07, the AO imposed penalty for concealment of particulars in the assessment year 2006-07. It is clear from the record that assessee had declared arbitration award in the return filed in assessment year in assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08. Due to dispute regarding taxability of capital gain in assessment year 2006-07 & 2007-08, the AO has assessed the capital gain in assessment year 2006-07 and also on protective basis in the assessment year 2007-08 and AO also observed that the issue is debatable and the AO himself was not sure as to whether the capital gain is to be assessed in assessment year 2006-07 & 2007-08. In view of these facts, the CIT(A) recorded a finding to the effect that the assessee has not concealed the amount of capital gain which is declared in the AY 2007-08 in view of the fact that possession was received in financial year 2006-07 only. Since the AO has taken the view that transfer of assets was in the AY 2006-07, capital gains was also assessed in the AY 2006-07. Since there was no concealment of particulars in the return but the issue was debatable and two opinions were possible as admitted by the AO, the CIT(A) has deleted the penalty. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the penalty insofar as issue was debatable as per the observation of the AO himself and since the possession was received in the financial year 2006-07, capital gain was offered in the assessment year 2007-08.
-
2014 (6) TMI 971
Disallowance of demurrage charges and penalty charges - non allowable expenses - CIT(A) deleted disallowance - Held that:- When the amounts are paid on contractual obligation the same have to be allowed as business expenditure. The amount paid for non delivery of goods in time is allowable as deduction even though such amount is designated as ‘penalty’ in the supply contract, time being the essence of the contract. In view of the above discussions and precedent we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly we uphold the same. - Decided in favour of assessee
Disallowance made towards excess depreciation claimed by the assessee company in respect of Tippers & Dumpers - Held that:- This issue has been decided by the appellate authorities in assessee’s own case in the earlier years in favour of the assessee wherein , came to the conclusion that in view of Circular No.652 dated 14th June, 1993 of C.B.D.T., the assessee was entitled to the benefit because of the fact that the assessee was using the vehicles in both the capacities, that is to say, business for transportation of goods on hire as well as transportation of goods. It was also pointed out that in the past for the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2004-2005, the learned C.I.T.(A) held that the assessee had the business of transportation of goods on hire as well as transporting other goods and, as such, was entitled to higher rate of depreciation as per the said Circular No.652. It appears that the Revenue did not challenge those decisions.- Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (6) TMI 970
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - Held that:- There is no finding of the Assessing Officer that the details supplied by the Assessee in the return of income while making the claim in respect of frontend fees were incorrect or erroneous or false. The Assessee has disclosed in its return of income that the amount of front end fees to be non taxable in India. The note was also annexed to the return giving the basis for which the claim was made. In these circumstances whether the Assessee's stand was justified or otherwise, surely the penalty proceedings could not have been initiated and the penalty could not have been imposed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 969
Depreciation on the assets given on lease under financial lease agreements - Held that:- As per the parity of reasoning laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd. (2013 (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT) the assessee company being the owner of assets, is entitled to depreciation even where the assets have been leased out in terms of a financial lease. The Tribunal has noted the terms and conditions of the lease arrangement and observed that during the subsistence of the lease, the assessee-lessor continued to retain the ownership of the assets. Secondly, the requirement of putting to use of the assets for the purposes of business also stands fulfilled, inasmuch as assessee has used the assets in the course of his business of leasing. In this manner, the Tribunal, following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd. (supra) held the assessee eligible for the claim of depreciation on leased assets. The facts and circumstances of the case in the year under consideration are similar to those considered by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 (supra) and therefore following the said precedent - Decided in favour of assessee
Ad-hoc disallowance of commission expenditure - Held that:- There is no direct clinching evidence to show that the claim made by the assessee was false or bogus and therefore the ad-hoc disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is quite unjustified. In this view of the matter, the CIT(A) ought to have deleted the entire addition rather than allowing part-relief, that too, on an ad- hoc basis. In conclusion, we hold that the income-tax authorities were not justified in making the impugned disallowance and accordingly, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire addition. - Decided in favour of assessee
Addition on account of Bad debts - Held that:- The impugned disallowance has been made by the Assessing Officer on mere conjectures and surmises. It is quite clear that the claim of the assessee for the bad debts written-off is in terms of section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. It is also quite clear that the debts in question have been actually written-off as irrecoverable in the account books of the assessee. It is also not disputed by the Revenue that the impugned debts have arisen in the course of carrying on assessee’s business of financing. In the background of the aforesaid undisputed facts, in our considered opinion, the issue is squarely covered by the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT ]. Thus no error on the part of the CIT(A) in deleting the impugned addition. - Decided in favour of assessee
Addition on income on account of non- performing assets - Held that:- We hereby affirm the order of the CIT(A) holding that the amount representing unrecognized income on NPAs classified as per the RBI guidelines cannot be assessed on accrual basis - Decided in favour of assessee
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- In the present case, the Assessing Officer has merely observed in one line that he does “not agree with the contention of the assessee”. Ostensibly, having regard to the manner in which the Assessing Officer has discussed the issue in the assessment order, the objective satisfaction contemplated in section 14A(2) of the Act is conspicuous by its absence. Therefore, in our view, the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the plea of the assessee that there was no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer as required in terms of section 14A of the Act before invoking rule 8D of the Rules. Secondly, the CIT(A) has also proceeded on the basis that from the assessment year under consideration i.e. assessment year 2008-09 onwards application of rule 8D of the Rules is automatic. No doubt, rule 8D of the Rules is effective from assessment year 2008-09 onwards.Therefore, the CIT(A) is wrong in proceeding on the basis that from assessment year 2008-09 onwards application of rule 8D of the Rules is automatic and mandatory. Thus, in our view, the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer on the issue of computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.- Decided in favour of assessee
Denial of credit for the tax deducted at source on behalf of the assessee - Held that:- We deem it fit and proper to affirm the directions of the CIT(A) with certain modifications. The Assessing Officer is hereby directed to allow credit for the tax deducted at source on behalf of the assessee in the light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Gupta ( 2014 (5) TMI 520 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ). - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2014 (6) TMI 968
Unaccounted investment in land - Held that:- It is seen that Assessee had purchased 6 plots of which 2 plots were from Mr. Intwala and 4 plots were from other parties. A.O had made the addition in respect of all the 6 plots based on the statement of Mr. Intwala. CIT(A) has granted relief in respect of plots that were purchased from other parties because there was no evidence for payment of on money. We find force in the submission of ld. A.R. that the examination of Mr. Intwala has no bearing on the Departmental appeal as its appeal was an independent appeal and was not directly connected with ground raised by Assessee in its appeal. We are therefore of the view that the appeal of Revenue was not required to be remitted to A.O and therefore remitting the Revenue’s appeal was mistake apparent from record.
-
2014 (6) TMI 967
Bogus purchases - entire addition made on the statement of one Shri Rakeshkumar M. Gupta and his family members - allegation of the Revenue that the said family members were issuing accommodation bills to the assessee - Held that:- We find that the sales made by the assessee have been accepted. It is an elementary rule of accountancy as well as taxation laws that profit from business cannot be ascertained without deducting cost of purchase from sales, otherwise it could amount to levy of income-tax on gross receipts or on sales. We further find that the AO has not commented upon the retraction made by Shri Rakeshkumar M. Gupta and his family members. We noticed that the said retraction was made by filing an affidavit. Nothing has been brought on record except for the statement of Shri Rakeshkumar M. Gupta which could suggest that the purchases made by the assessee are bogus.
Considering the entire facts in totality and keeping in mind that no adverse inference has been drawn so far as sales are concerned, we do not find any reason for making any disallowance on this account. The adhoc addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is also without any basis and the same is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 966
Reopening of assessment - assessment of capital gains on sale of land - Held that:- After the initial return of income in which assessee had not disclosed long term capital gains on the sale of land, it voluntarily filed a revised return of income on 28.08.2006 admitting long term capital gains of ₹ 34,21,819/- on the sale of land. Thereafter, the case was picked up for scrutiny and this very issue was examined thoroughly. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 14.12.2007 and some expenditure claimed was disallowed. The issue of assessment of capital gains on sale of land was considered thoroughly by the assessing officer and information on this issue was available on the very 1st page of the computation given by the assessee in the revised return of income. In fact, this was the only issue which was presented in the revised return. Therefore there was no reason to even suspect that such an issue could not be discovered by the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings. Indeed, the assessment order dated 14.12.2007 provides a discussion of this very issue and the assessing officer clearly goes on to say in para-1 as well as in para-4 of that order that long-term capital gain has to be assessed on the sale of land.
It is very clear from above that after a detailed scrutiny and investigation the assessing officer had formed an opinion on the taxation of profit on sale of land as capital gains. Now, without any further information and without providing an iota of evidence to show any default on the part of the assessee, the assessing officer is not permitted as per law to reopen the assessment and change his opinion to assess the profit on sale of land as business income. The aforementioned facts very clearly show that this is only a change of opinion. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (6) TMI 965
Addition of the receipts reflected in form No.26AS - Held that:- As based on 26AS alone no additions can be made. This can at best be a starting point for necessary verification by the assessee, but it cannot, on standalone basis, justify the impugned additions. However, we also considered it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for strictly limited purpose of verifying the information. In case, he can find any independent evidence of the assessee’s having actually received the said rent, he can bring the same to tax. We make it clear that the onus will be on the Assessing Officer to find such evidence and that the assessee cannot be expected to discharge the impossible burden of proving a negative i.e. that the assessee did not receive such rent.
With the observations as above, and for the limited purposes set out above, the matter stands restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. Needless to add that any material, adverse to the assessee, will have to be confronted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer, and that, in case Assessing Officer intends to pass any fresh order as a result of these directions, he will do so only after giving due and fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with the law and by way of a speaking order.
-
2014 (6) TMI 964
Jurisdiction of AO - Held that:- Tribunal has rightly held that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to reagitate the assessments which were already completed and subsisting. We therefore do not find any element of law to be decided in this appeal.
-
2014 (6) TMI 963
Rental income received - treated as “Income from Business” and not as “Income from House Property” - Held that:- As decided in Commissioner of Income Tax-III Vs. Velankani Information Systems (P) Limited [2013 (8) TMI 113 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] what is the intention behind the lease and secondly what are the facilities given along with the buildings and documents executed in respect of each of them is to be seen. Thirdly it is to be found out whether it is inseparable or not. If they are inseparable and the intention is to carry on the business of letting out the commercial property and carrying at complex commercial activity and getting rental income therefrom, then such a rental income falls under the heading of profits and gains of business or profession.
Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the rental income received from Forum Mall, Eva Mall and UB City and rental received from Fit Outs (i.e., bare superstructure of the building) should be treated as “Income from Business” and not as “Income from House Property” - Decided against revenue
-
2014 (6) TMI 958
Deduction for provision made on account of liability towards contribution to Drug Price Equalization Account (DPEA) - ITAT allowed the claim - Held that:- The Tribunal in the instant case has followed the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971 (8) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court]. In view thereof and finding that the Tribunal's order is in consonance with the facts and circumstances of the case, so also, the statutory liability having been created in the year in question and which has no bearing on the pending proceedings initiated by the Assessee or the dispute raised therein that we find that this question cannot be termed as substantial question of law.
Deduction u/s 43B on account of non payment of Sales Tax - - ITAT allowed the claim - Held that:- Tribunal has held in favour of the Assessee by observing that the liability in relation thereto was also an issue raised for Assessment Year 1984-1985. . The Revenue surprisingly does not question the common order of the Tribunal for these years. See CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd [2014 (4) TMI 1012 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ]. The question will have to be decided against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee.
Expenses incurred on installation of computer software, expenses on electrical work and expenses on installation of lifts - whether fall within the ambit of revenue expenditure? - Held that:- In relation to this the Tribunal in the impugned order observed that there is room for certain flexibility in the views taken from time to time. The Assessee in such cases installs the computers. This technology is now said to be acceptable in changing world. The rapid advancement of research also contributes a small degree of endurability, but that by itself does not mean that the expenses incurred cannot be revenue in nature. Since technology advancement is an aspect which must be taken judicial note of, so also, machinery becoming obsolete that there is necessity of acquiring further technology. This is to meet the growing competition and considering trends in the market. Therefore, such expenditure will have to be treated as revenue expenditure - Decided in favour of the Assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 957
Disallowance u/s.14A - Held that:- Since in the instant case the assessee has not received any dividend income out of the shares held as investment and since no disallowance u/s.14A has been made in the preceding as well as succeeding assessment years, therefore, we agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that no disallowance u/s.14A can be made under the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is setaside and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the disallowance made u/s.14A. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (6) TMI 956
Non filing of paper book - Held that:- The appellant is directed to prepare requisite number of paper books and file the same in the Department within eight weeks from date after serving copy thereof upon the respondent, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed without any further reference to the Bench
-
2014 (6) TMI 954
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- We apply the decision of CIT vs Vegetable Products Ltd [1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court] and in the view favourable to the assessee is followed. So, in principle, we hold that the authorities below have wrongly invoked section 14A in case of investments held as ‘stock-in-trade’ wherein the ‘exempt’ income by way of dividends is only incidental. It is also made clear that since there is no verification of the factual position of investments held as ‘stock-in-trade’, we accept the assessee’s contentions in principle only and remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer to determine the true factual position. The assessee’s alternative plea carries only an academic significance. The relevant ground is accepted for statistical purposes.
UPS attached to the computers are part of computer systems and eligible for depreciation @ 60% and directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on UPS @ 60%
Restricting relief @ 90% of the tax paid in foreign countries - Held that:- CIT(A) has quoted a notification No.S.O 2123(E) dated 28.8.2008 clarifying that in such a case involving a DTAA, an income has to be included in the total receipts and the necessary relief is to be granted by ‘elimination’ method or as per the terms of agreement seeking to avoid double taxation. He relies upon Finance Act, 2012 inserting explanation 3 to section 90 making the notification retrospectively applicable. In this manner, the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to allow relief to the assessee as per the aforesaid notification.
Section 115JB could not have been invoked in a bank’s case.
-
2014 (6) TMI 947
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - difference in valuation of stock and expenses on staff and coolie - Held that:- As after the returns were filed, in the course of survey proceedings, it was found that there was difference in valuation of stock and expenses on staff and coolie. The assessee without a murmur filed second revised return and offered it for tax and paid tax and interest promptly. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee tried to justify its returns and had produced before the authorities all its books of account, invoices, check post certificates and delivery notes. When the Assessing Authority called upon the assessee to secure the confirmation letters and also to produce the creditors before him, the assessee was successful in getting confirmation letters from everyone, but could not produce some of the creditors. Only in respect of those creditors whose presence it could not secure which was six in number, the assessee agreed to write off the said persons and offered it for tax. Hence, the assessee was called upon to file second revised returns which it promptly filed and paid the tax with interest. It is not a case where the assessee did not offer any explanation nor the explanation offered by it was found to be false or not found to- be bona fide. Partially it was successful in proving its defense. Therefore, it is a case where, the assessee was not successful in establishing his defense. Therefore, there was no intention either to suppress information or to file any incorrect statement. At this juncture it is pertinent to note that in the notice issued to the assessee, the department has not made it clear what is the accusation against the assessee and it was full of blanks. In those circumstances, the Tribunal on proper consideration of the entire material on record and after taking note of the law on the point as decided by the various courts, rightly held that there is no suppression of material facts and was justified in setting aside the order passed by the First Appellate Authority as well as the Assessing Authority. - Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2014 (6) TMI 946
Appeal ADMITTED on the following substantial questions of law:-
A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,73,95,334/made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was a receipt without consideration and taxable under Section 56(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
(B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the act of the Assessee in abstaining from contesting the Will of Mrs.Bamji would constitute the consideration for which payment had been received by the Assessee from Mr.Bhavsar and thereby the provisions of Section 56(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were not applicable?
-
2014 (6) TMI 945
Disallowance being rural development expenditure - Held that:- Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for 2000-01 and 2001-02 and for A.Yrs. 1998-99 and 1999-2000, we direct the AO to allow the expenditure incurred on Rural Development. - Decided in favour of assessee
Addition of MODVAT (CENVAT) to be made in closing stock - Held that:- No addition of MODVAT (CENVAT) to be made in closing stock in AY 2001-02 as held by CIT(A). However if it is held that closing stock for AY 2001-02 to be increased by CENVAT of ₹ 4,83,99,629 as held by AO, then opening stock in AY 2002-03 shall also be increase by CENVAT of ₹ 4,83,99,629. The AO may be directed accordingly.
Deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(iii) for interest on loans taken for new projects/ expansion / modernization - Held that:- We find that in the earlier years the claim of interest has been allowed making this grievance of the assessee infructuous.
Allowance of marketing and technical knowhow expenses - assessee claimed that if the said expenditure is not allowed as Revenue expenditure, then the same may be considered for the purpose of depreciation - Held that:- We find that the said expenditure has been allowed as Revenue expenditure in A.Y. 2000-01 thereby making this grievance of the assessee becomes infructuous and it is dismissed accordingly.
Premium on early redemption of debentures - Held that:- We find that the entire expenditure has been allowed in assessment year 2000-01, therefore there remains nothing to be allowed during the year under consideration.
Addition u/s 43B(f) being provision made for leave salary - Held that:- In order to apply the provisions of Sec. 43B not only should be the liability to pay the tax or duty be incurred in the accounting year but also should be statutorily payable in the accounting year. In our considered opinion, the provision for leave salary is not a statutory liability but only a contractual liability which is payable only if the employees resigns or retired from the services. We also find that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. (2007 (6) TMI 175 - CALCUTTA High Court ) has struck down Sec. 43B(f) being arbitrary, unconscionable and dehors the Apex Court decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers [2000 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court] . Respectfully following the afore discussed decisions, we direct the AO to allow the claim of provisions for leave salary - Decided in favour of assessee
Payment made for restructuring of 161h & 17th series debentures - Held that:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. [1988 (5) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court] has laid down that whereby incurring expenditure, no capital asset is created but the expenditure enable the assessee to avoid a recurring revenue expenditure in future, the same would be revenue expenditure. Further, if an expenditure is of the nature described in any of the specified Sec. i.e. Sec. 30 to 36, the same cannot be fall within Sec. 37(1) of the Act. We find that the facts and issues are entirely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mohit Marketing Vs CIT [2005 (4) TMI 546 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] thus we direct the AO to allow the entire claim - Decided in favour of assessee
Depreciation on goodwill - Held that:- Respectfully following the decision of the Co ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2000-01., we direct the AO to allow the claim of depreciation on Goodwill. - Decided in favour of assessee
MAT computation - Held that:- Not to reduce the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act by allocating Head Office expenses to profits derived from eligible units.
Enhancement and withdrawing the exemption u/s lOB on the ground that undertaking is not approved by the Board particularly appointed u/s 14 of the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act - Held that:- If the claim of deduction/exemption is allowed in earlier years, the same cannot be withdrawn in subsequent years unless deductions allowed in the initial year is withdrawn. We find that there is no change in the facts which were in existence during the year vis-à-vis the claim of exemption u/s. 10B of the Act. We also find that this is not the first year of claim therefore the department cannot deny the benefit of Sec. 10B without withdrawing the claim allowed in the initial assessment year.
Recompute the deduction u/s. 80HHC under MAT provisions as per law and keeping in view the decision in the case of Bharati Information Tech. Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (10) TMI 19 - Supreme Court of India ].
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- We find that the major investment of the assessee is in its group companies. After considering this facts, the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to ₹ 1.87 lakhs. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A).
........
|
