Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2014 (2) TMI 1268 - AT - Income TaxExpenditure for repair and maintenance of building development charges of raw material storage yard and filling levelling and development of safety area-III - revenue v/s capital expenditure - CIT(A) has merely followed the order of the tribunal pertaining to assessment year 2004-05 in deleting the addition - Held that - Once the tribunal has deleted the very additions this argument of the Revenue does not form a justifiable ground for us to adopt a different approach in the impugned assessment year. Therefore we upholding the findings of the CIT(A). Re-work the deduction u/s 80IA without setting off the losses on notional basis qua disallowance made in the course of regular assessment - Held that - CIT(A) has followed the decision of hon ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. vs ACIT 2010 (3) TMI 860 - Madras High Court in observing that losses of earlier year prior to initial assessment year (first year of claim) which had already been set off cannot be set off once again against the profits of eligible business in determining the quantum of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In this manner the disallowance/addition stands deleted. In our view once the hon ble jurisdictional high court has decided this substantial question of law there is no reason to interfere in the CIT(A) s order which has followed the said judicial verdict. Accordingly the findings under challenge stand confirmed. Depreciation claim - Held that - The assessee has fairly conceded to this plea of the Revenue that the value had not been arrived at in accordance with section 32(1)(ii) as in the case of other plant and machinery as it pertained to increase in the cost of windmill due to the debit of stamp charges paid during the year towards windmill purchases in earlier year. Accordingly we restore this disallowance of depreciation as the assessee has not supported the findings of the CIT(A). The Revenue s arguments stand accepted.
|