|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 23051 Records
-
2019 (12) TMI 1650
Exclusion of period of 100 days only with effect from 1st May, 2019 to 9th August, 2019, i.e., the date of pendency of the proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal and the Hon’ble Supreme Court - HELD THAT:- In the case of Y. SHIVRAM PRASAD AND ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS S. DHANAPAL & ORS. AND SERVALAKSHMI PAPER LTD. & ORS [2019 (5) TMI 386 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI], this Appellate Tribunal observed and held that As the liquidation so taken up under the ‘I&B Code’, the arrangement of scheme should be in consonance with the statement and object of the ‘I&B Code’. Meaning thereby, the scheme must ensure maximisation of the assets of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ and balance the stakeholders such as, the ‘Financial Creditors’, ‘Operational Creditors’, ‘Secured Creditors’ and ‘Unsecured Creditors’ without any discrimination. Before approval of an arrangement or Scheme, the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) should follow the same principle and should allow the ‘Liquidator’ to constitute a ‘Committee of Creditors’ for its opinion to find out whether the arrangement of Scheme is viable, feasible and having appropriate financial matrix. It will be open for the Adjudicating Authority as a Tribunal to approve the arrangement or Scheme in spite of some irrelevant objections as may be raised by one or other creditor or member keeping in mind the object of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The ‘Liquidator’ to first act in accordance with the decision in Y. Shivram Prasad by following the procedure of Sections 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013. It is noticed that for the purpose of proceedings under Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013, it is open to the Adjudicating Authority to grant more than 90 days of period - for completion of the ‘Liquidation Process’, average two years’ time has been granted. The sale of assets can be done only if the ‘Liquidator’ fails to revive the Company by pursuing the proceedings under Section 230 vis-à-vis 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 as a going concern.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1649
Entitlement for recovery of advances interest (by Bank) - classification of the loan account as Non Performing Assets - amount payable in conditional interim order - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered view that a prima facie case has been made out for grant of interim orders for the reason that the petitioner appearsto have made substantial payments and despite that further action is contemplated against the properties of the petitioner Company, which may result in irreparable loss and grave hardship to him and balance of convenience as on today lies in favour of the petitioner. Hence there shall be an order of adinterim injunction, as prayed for till 21.01.2020. However it is made clear that till the disposal of the writ petition, the writ petitioners shall not create any third party rights in respect of the properties in question.
Call on 21.01.2020.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1648
Offence under SEBI Act - fraudulent scheme of issuing GDR with an ulterior motive - HELD THAT:- Heard the appeal at the stage of admission. Learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that the orders are yet to be passed in the proceedings and all the grievances of the appellant can be made before the Whole Time Member. He also fairly submitted that the proceedings can be possibly disposed of within six months from today. In view of the said statement, the appeal is disposed of at this stage with no orders as to costs.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1647
Valuation - cost of Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) and After Sales Service (ASS) charges required to be included in the assessable value of the motor vehicles sold by the appellant to the dealers or not - charges/expenditures are incurred by the dealers from their profit margin - HELD THAT:- Both sides fairly agree that the issue is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MYSORE VERSUS M/S TVS MOTORS COMPANY LTD. [2015 (12) TMI 874 - SUPREME COURT]. Their Lordships considering the issue in the context of amended Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f. 1.7.2000 observed that PDI charges and free ASS charges would not be included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Act for the purposes of paying excise duty.
The Pre Delivery Inspection (PDI) and After Sales Service (ASS) charges cannot be included in the assessable value of the motor vehicles - the appeals are allowed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1646
Maintainability of petition - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - HELD THAT:- The respondents have issued a circular dated 29.10.2019 on the subject of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. A copy of the same has been tendered in Court and taken on record. Learned counsels for both the parties state that the petitioner is covered by the said circular as well.
This petition has become infructuous and is disposed of as such.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1645
Depreciation on goodwill - goodwill in subject was acquired during merger of two companies - AO disallowed the depreciation on goodwill merely on the ground that the goodwill is not reflected in the post-merger audited financial statement and the tax audit report of the assessee - HELD THAT:- As decided in M/s Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. [2019 (9) TMI 1700 - ITAT KOLKATA] assessee has submitted that post approval of merger by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Hon’ble Calcutta High court, the audited financial statement clearly reflected the amount of goodwill that arose pursuant to the merger.
The same was also filed with the A.O - Though in the tax audit report the tax auditor has not considered the depreciation on goodwill, but the same cannot be the basis of disallowance. We find that such disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is erroneous. On appeal by assessee, CIT(A) has appreciated the facts of the assessee company and deleted the addition. That being so, we decline to interfere in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), his order - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1644
Levy of penalty for not making the payment of the electricity duty at the prescribed rate, within the due dates - Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes to pass such order - Order passed under review - Section 9-A of the Bihar Electricity Duty Act - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of Rule 12 (1) of the Bihar Electricity Duty Rules, it is thus, clear that the Commercial Taxes Officer and the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes are the officers of the same rank, so far as the assessment order is concerned. Rule 14(10) & (11) clearly prescribe that for reviewing any order, other than the order passed by the Commissioner, the sanction of the Commissioner in writing is required, and such review cannot be made beyond the period of 12 months from the date of the passing of the order sought to be reviewed, and further, an order can be reviewed by an officer, who is the successor-in-office of the officer who had passed the order sought to be reviewed, only with the previous sanction of the Commissioner, even if the order is sought to be reviewed within the period of 12 months.
A bare perusal of Section 5-A (2) of the Act shows that even the orders under this provision have to be passed by the 'prescribed' authority. Such authority may be prescribed either in the Act or in the Rules. If the contention of the learned counsels for the State is accepted that this provision is not subject to any Rules, then it is incumbent upon the learned counsel for the State to show as to where in the Act such authority has been prescribed, which could pass the order under Section 5-A(2) of the Act.
The impugned penalty orders as contained in Annexure-12 to the writ applications, clearly show that they have been passed as review orders, and Annexure-10 to the writ applications, clearly show that in view of the audit objection made by the audit team of the Accountant General, the review proceedings had been initiated, and the letters had been issued to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, for granting sanction for review. According to Section 9-A (4), the prescribed authority to review an order, would be the officer who had passed the order, or his successor-in-office - The submission of the learned counsels for the State that the order is not an order passed in review, rather it is an order passed suo-motu, by an authority under the Act, imposing penalty, cannot be accepted. It is the settled principle of law that an order is to be read as it is, and its contents / nature cannot be improved by subsequent affidavits / submissions.
Thus, it is clear and apparent that the impugned orders of penalty dated 30.1.2014, as contained in Annexure-12 to the writ applications, are actually the orders passed in review, in exercise of the powers under Section 9A (4) of the Act, read with Rules 14 (10 ) and (11) of the Rules, and these orders have been passed without any previous sanction in writing, of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and have also been passed beyond the period of un-extendable limitation of one year. As such, these penalty orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Consequently, the subsequent orders / Judgement passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi, and the Tribunal, also cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
All the penalty orders are hereby, set aside. Consequently, the penalty amount deposited / recovered from the petitioner Company are directed to be refunded / adjusted in the future bills towards the electricity duty.
Writ Applications allowed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1643
Maintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - threshold limit of salary not being paid - Appellant submits that even if the salary of recent year is taken into consideration, which is more than Rs.1 Lakh, it having not been paid by the Corporate Debtor, the application under Section 9 was maintainable.
HELD THAT:- From application under Section 9 filed by the Appellant, it is found that the appellant has shown particulars of the claim under following heads - Salary for the period December, 2014 to March, 2015, which is barred by limitation; Reimbursement of amount for FY 2014-15 as per SAP Ledger Statement, which is also barred by limitation; Salary for the period August, 2016 to March, 2017 plus TDS; TDS of certain period; Leave encashment for July, 2013 - March, 2017 - however, the Adjudicating Authority noticed that the claim for the period April, 2016 to March, 2017 do not pertain to the Corporate Debtor - 'M/s DSC Ltd.' but to M/s DSCL - FENGSHUN-WANAG Consortium' as stated by Appellant in Form-5.
The application was filed by the Appellant with an intent to receive the dues from the Corporate Debtor and not with intention for resolution or liquidation, therefore, the Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected the prayer of the Appellant - So far as the question as to whether the documents are forged or not is concerned, it cannot be determined by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) or this Appellate Tribunal and therefore, the Adjudicating Authority rightly not deliberated on such issue.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1642
Withholding liability u/s 195 - Royalty payment as under India-Singapore DTAA - copyrighted material - CIT(A) held that the payment for software licence is royalty, is the access to “significant proprietary database” being allowed to the assessed by the software in question - HELD THAT:- We find that assessee to database, in the context of materially similar DTAA provision, has been held to be outside the ambit of "royalty". While holding so, the coordinate bench, in the case of ITO vs Cadila Healthcare Ltd. [2017 (1) TMI 554 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] as held that Departmental Representative could not demonstrate as to how there was use of copyright. In our considered view, it was simply a case of copyrighted material and therefore the impugned payments cannot be treated as royalty payments.
When database access by itself does not result in taxation as royalty, such database access being coupled with software licence cannot bring the software hence consideration within the scope of royalty. Nothing, therefore, turns on the reasoning adopted by the learned CIT(A).
As per the taxation of payment for licencing of software, we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by a coordinate bench decision in the case of ADIT vs TII Team Telecom International Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 497 - ITAT MUMBAI]
Payment for licence fee of software is not taxable in nature. No contrary decision, which is binding in nature, has been cited before us.
We uphold the plea of the assessee and hold that no tax was deductible from remittance in question. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1641
TP Adjustment - Comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Rane TRW Steering Systems Ltd. - As the export sale of the assessee is 98.90% of the total sales whereas the export sale of Rane TRW Steering Systems Ltd., which primarily caters to the domestic market is 11.47% of the total sales. Apart from the above, Rane TRW Steering Systems Ltd., is engaged in the research and development activities in their product/process development and thereby has incurred huge Research & Development expenses during the year which is verifiable from the annual audit report placed - It also holds intangible assets which are verifiable from the notes on fixed assets - In view of all these i.e., diversified business, low export sale, non-availability of segmental data, incurring of expenditure on R&D activities and presence of intangibles, we are of the considered opinion that Rane TRW Steering Systems Ltd., cannot be considered as a comparable company. We, therefore, direct the A.O./TPO to exclude Rane TRW Steering Systems Ltd., from the list of comparables.
ZF Steering Gear (India) Ltd. - As relying on various decisions to the proposition that the comparables have to be excluded on account of carrying out research and development activities and considering the fact that the comparable company has very low export sales as compared to that of the assessee, we hold that ZF Steering Gear (India) Ltd., cannot be considered as a comparable.
Negative working capital adjustment for the differences between the working capital of comparable companies vis-à-vis the assessee - As in the instant case, majority of sales i.e., 94% of the total sales made by the assessee is to its related parties, therefore, the assessee, in our opinion, is running its business with no working capital risk. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the TPO/DRP were not justified in making negative working capital adjustment. Therefore, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1640
Refusal to register a settlement deed - refusal on the ground that the subject property had been agreed to be sold in favour of the second respondent by an agreement of sale - HELD THAT:- The unenforceability of the agreement cannot be decided by the first respondent. Given the present circumstances, the only remedy for the petitioner is to seek for a declaratory relief by filing a suit before the competent Civil Court stating that the registered agreement of sale is a nullity and is unenforceable and that therefore, it should be set aside.
There cannot be any difficulty to present a plaint to declare the agreement of sale as unenforceable because the cause of action for doing so has arisen only now when the petitioner executed a gift deed in favour of her granddaughter.
The writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court to declare the agreement of sale as null and void and unenforceable. If such a plaint is presented, the competent Civil Court is directed to entertain the suit and take a decision on merits and in accordance with law.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1639
Revision u/s 263 - opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee - HELD THAT:- As per the provision of sub-section (1) of section 263, an opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee which in the assessee’s case is absent.
We note that legal maxims, “Audi alteram partem” literally means “hear the other party”. This maxim is based on the principle of natural justice. It means that a person deciding on issue should hear both sides and give each an opportunity of hearing what is being alleged against him. A decision taken without affording both the parties an opportunity to be heard violates the principles of natural justice. An award made in violation of the above said rule may be set aside. On laying of charges, an opportunity to answer it must be given to an individual alleged to have committed an offence. Sufficient notice also should be given to the person against whom the charge is laid. This rule has a universal acceptance and is founded upon the plainest principles of justice.
Therefore keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld PCIT. Hence, we think it fit and appropriate to remit this issue back to the file of ld. PCIT for de novo adjudication after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1638
Seeking grant of leave of absence - seeking to confirm the minutes of the previous Board Meeting - seeking to take on record of the notices given by PP Bafna Ventures Private Limited and replies given there for - seeking to Review the operations and status of the Company - seeking to consider and Appointment of Additional Directors to strengthen the Board - seeking to appoint signatories to operate Bank Accounts - seeking to take such steps to immediately start the operations of the Company and to save the Company - seeking to consider and appoint Auditors - seeking to consider and approve the Draft Directors Report - seeking to approve the draft Notice to convene the Annual General Meeting.
HELD THAT:- All contentions are expressly left open - It is clarified that nothing in this order will operate to prevent the 1st Respondent from paying all statutory dues, workmen’s dues and other liabilities including for utilities such as power, water, municipal and land taxes and the like.
Petition disposed off.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1637
TDS u/s 195 - payment to non residents - exception to Section 9(1)(vi)(b) and 9(1)(vii)(b) - assessee has made payments to non-residents after grossing up the invoice amount and deducted tax at source as per provisions of Section 195A - Assessee submitted that the CIT (Appeals) has erred in treating the payment to non-resident as royalty and further CIT (Appeals) has not considered the exception to Section 9(1)(vi)(b) and 9(1)(vii)(b) - as payments are made to non-residents and the assessee seeks declaration under Section 248 of the Act under the provisions of Section 206AA of the Act, the rate of 25% is not applicable to assessee for the purpose of grossing up u/s 195A - HELD THAT:- We found strength in the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative. On perusal of the order of CIT (Appeals), we find the CIT (Appeals) has dealt on the other grounds of appeal raised before him but there was no specific observation in particular to provisions and Section as envisaged by the learned Authorised Representative.
We are of the substantive opinion that there is no finding on this disputed issue as submitted by the learned Authorised Representative by appellate authority. Therefore we considering the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative and findings of the CIT (Appeals) order, consider it appropriate to restore all the disputed issues raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal to the file of CIT (Appeals) and decided against the assessee, to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing to substantiate the case with evidence and shall co-operate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal and allow the grounds of appeal of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1636
Estimation of income - Bogus purchases - income tax officer in this case has made 12.5% addition on account of bogus purchase - HELD THAT:- It is settled law that when sales are not doubted, hundred percent disallowance for bogus purchase cannot be done. The rationale being no sales is possible without actual purchases. This proposition is supported from honourable jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises [2014 (7) TMI 559 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] In this case the honourable High Court has upheld hundred percent allowance for the purchases said to be bogus when sales are not doubted.
However in that case all the supplies were to government agency. In the present case the facts of the case indicate that assessee has made purchase from the grey market. Making purchases through the grey market gives the assessee savings on account of non-payment of tax and others at the expense of the exchequer.
As regards the quantification of the profit element embedded in making of such bogus/unsubstantiated purchases by the assessee, we find that as held by honourable High Court of Bombay in its recent judgement in the case of M. Haji Adam & Co [2019 (2) TMI 1632 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the addition in respect of bogus purchases is to be limited to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases at the same rate as of other genuine purchases.
We set aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer with the direction to restrict the addition as regards the bogus purchases by bringing the gross profit rate on such bogus purchases at the same rate as that of the other genuine purchases. Assessee's appeal is partly allowed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1635
TP Adjustment - Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the transaction of the interest on loan - DRP directed the TPO to apply LIBOR plus 500 basis points given by the taxpayer’s company to its AE - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that transfer pricing adjustment qua the transaction of advancing loan by the taxpayer to its AE is to be determined at US LIBOR plus 170 basis points. Consequently, the TPO is directed to recompute the interest at US LIBOR plus 170 basis points to benchmark the international transactions qua interest on loan by the taxpayer to its AE. Consequently, the appeal filed by the taxpayer is allowed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1634
Winding up petition under Section 271-272 of Companies Act, 2013 - reasonable opportunity of making representation - Whether the Central Government has accorded the sanction as per law? - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly the Central Government ordered investigation into the affairs of M/s NKS Holdings Pvt Ltd to SFIO and the report was submitted on 31.03.2016 to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. It is nowhere on record that during the investigation Respondent No.1 company was noticed. Therefore, the argument advanced by the Learned Sr. Counsel of Respondent No.1 that Respondent No.1 received notice on 07.07.2017 then only they came to know that in the report involvement of Respondent No.1 was found. The SFIO’s report runs in more than 7000 pages incriminating 49 companies including Respondent NO.1. The Respondent No.1 company in reply to notice dated 07.07.2017 requested for supplying the copy of such report but copy has not been supplied to Respondent No.1. That even without considering this reply which was received on 01.08.2017 by the Respondent No.2 on 29.08.2017 sanction was accorded against the Respondent No.1.
This sanction order does not contain what are the allegations against the Respondent No.1 company and to substantiate the allegations what documents were placed before him. It is also not mentioned that before according sanction the company has been given reasonable opportunity of making representations. It is also not mentioned that the sanctioning authority prima facie satisfied with the allegations against the Respondent No.1 company.
It is apparent that without giving reasonable opportunity of representation to Respondent No.1 the sanction has been granted that too without applying the mind thus we find no ground to interfere in the order passed by the NCLT - Appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1633
Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 - undisclosed loan taken - creditworthiness of share applicants not proved - HELD THAT:- As come on record that the learned coordinate bench has already applied its mind in assessee’s appeal [2019 (9) TMI 146 - ITAT KOLKATA] whilst deleting the impugned addition in case of the very parties by holding that it had proved identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of all four related parties (supra). We therefore adopt the above detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis and affirm the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge deleting the balance addition in issue. Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1632
Possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income - preliminary inquiry before the registration of the crime done or not - delay in the completion of the investigation prejudicing the rights of the Accused Officer - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the FIR itself shows that the information collected is in respect of disproportionate assets of the Accused Officer. The purpose of a preliminary inquiry is to screen wholly frivolous and motivated complaints, in furtherance of acting fairly and objectively. Herein, relevant information was available with the informant in respect of prima facie allegations disclosing a cognizable offence. Therefore, once the officer recording the FIR is satisfied with such disclosure, he can proceed against the accused even without conducting any inquiry or by any other manner on the basis of the credible information received by him. It cannot be said that the FIR is liable to be quashed for the reason that the preliminary inquiry was not conducted. The same can only be done if upon a reading of the entirety of an FIR, no offence is disclosed.
The preliminary inquiry warranted in LALITA KUMARI VERSUS GOVT. OF UP. & ORS. [2013 (11) TMI 1520 - SUPREME COURT] is not required to be mandatorily conducted in all corruption cases. It has been reiterated by this Court in multiple instances that the type of preliminary inquiry to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. There are no fixed parameters on which such inquiry can be said to be conducted. Therefore, any formal and informal collection of information disclosing a cognizable offence to the satisfaction of the person recording the FIR is sufficient.
There are no merit in the reasonings recorded by the High Court in respect of contentions raised by the Accused Officer. The arguments raised by the Accused Officer cannot be accepted in quashing the proceedings under the Act - appeal allowed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 1631
Depreciation on goodwill arising on demerger - whether additional ground could be raised in a cross objection filed by the assessee u/s 253(4)? - HELD THAT:- The issue is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench [2019 (7) TMI 1547 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] AO has simply disputed the quantification of eligible depreciation spanning over various financial years on the ground that depreciation is eligible from the appointed date as sanctioned by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court . Thus, on account of such reworking, the assessee has presented a new claim towards depreciation on goodwill in the impugned AY 2009-10 on the ground that al l the relevant facts are available on record which are duly admitted by the Revenue. Therefore, the assessee cannot be deprived of the eligible depreciation as computed by the AO himself concerning AY 2009-10.
Additional ground could be raised in a cross objection filed by the assessee u/s 253(4) - We find ourselves in agreement with the propositions made on behalf of the assessee that in a cross objection, there is no bar to raise legal issues for the first time before ITAT. A cross object ion is like an appeal. It has al l the trappings of an appeal It is filed in the form of memorandum and it is required to be disposed in same manner as an appeal. Even where the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default, cross object ion may nevertheless be heard and determined. Cross object ion is nothing but an appeal, a cross appeal at that. This apart, raising of additional ground would only enable the authority concern to correctly assess the tax liability of the assessee. Simi lar view has been expressed in the case of ITO vs. Jasjit Singh [2014 (9) TMI 1166 - ITAT DELHI]. We thus do not see any impediment in entertaining the additional grounds. The relevant facts are available on
Additional ground is concerned, we observe that where the AO has readjusted the quantum of depreciation in the subsequent assessment year, the assessee is within its legitimate rights to be granted depreciation in AY 2009-10 as per the figures worked by the AO himself . We do not see any perceptible reason for not admitting such claim of the assessee. We also find bonafides in the plea of the assessee for raising new claim on account of depreciation by way of additional ground at this belated stage.
The order for the AY 2012-13 was passed on 29.03.2015. By virtue of this order, the assessee came to know about the revision in the claim of depreciat ion concerning AY 2012- 13. By that time, the order of the CIT(A) dated 13.12.2013 was already passed. Therefore, the assessee was incapacitated to put forward such new claim towards depreciation on goodwill amounting for which relevant facts are duly available on record in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Goetze ( India) Ltd. [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] & NTPC [1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT]
Disallowance under section 14A Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- Disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D is pertained to disallowance of administrative expenditure incurred towards earning exempt income. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance - After perusal of the material on record we observe that it is not possible to earn huge volume of exempt income without incurring administrative expenses, therefore, we do not find any unreasonableness and infirmity in the decision of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee on this issue is dismissed
........
|
9911796707
