Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 398 - ITAT PUNEDisallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Since the own capital and free reserves of the assessee company is much more than the investment in shares and mutual funds, the dividend income of which is exempt, and since there is no categorical finding by the AO that borrowed funds have been utilized for investment in share and mutual funds, therefore, no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is warranted in the instant case. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of ₹ 57,929/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is upheld.However, as regards the disallowance of ₹ 8,636/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned the same relates to disallowance of administrative expenses. Nothing has been brought to our notice that administrative expenses is not required or has not been incurred for earning such exempt income. Therefore, in absence of any such details the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting to ₹ 8,636/- has to be sustained. - Decided partly in favour of revenue. Disallowance by invoking provisions of sec. 36(1)(va) - Employees' contribution to the Provident Fund paid beyond the due date prescribed in the Provident Fund Act - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Issue stands decided in favour of the assessee by the recent decision of CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports [2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where it has been held that Employees' contribution paid after the due date prescribed under the relevant Act but deposited on or before the due date of filing of the return prescribed u/s.139(1) is to be allowed as expenditure. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of write-off u/s 36(1)(vii) - CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee - Held that:- In the instant case we find the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction as business loss considering the smallness of the items. It is an admitted fact that these are very old EMDs lying with various departments such as National Safety Council, Indravai Hydro Power, SBI Satpura, Bhusawal Thermal etc. Although these are not bad debts but considering the smallness of the amounts lying with various departments under the head EMD the assessee has written off these items and the CIT(A) considering the rationale behind the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) has allowed the same as business loss in the year of write off. The Ld. Departmental Representative could not seriously challenge the finding of Ld.CIT(A). Considering the totality of the facts of the case and considering the smallness of the amounts vis-à-vis number of entries we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of interest calculated on interest free advances made by the assessee to group concerns - CIT(A) deleted dis allowances - Held that:- The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009 (1) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY) has held that if there be interest free funds available to an assessee sufficient to meet its investment and at the same time the assessee had raised a loan, it can be presumed that the investments were from the interest free funds available. Since in the instant case the capital and free reserves as well as interest free funds are much more than the loans advanced to sister concerns and since the sale proceeds are deposited in the cash credit account from where the loans have advanced to the sister concerns, therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by the AO - Decided in favour of assessee.
|