Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 704 - AT - Income TaxDenial of deduction u/s 80IC in respect of 'Other Income" - Interest received on refund of excess recovery by HIMUDA, Award reed from Government, Interest on IT Refunds and Foreign Exchange Fluctuation - CIT(A) agreeing with the AO that the said income was not derived from the business of the eligible Undertaking - Held that:- While deciding appeal of the revenue upheld the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in allowing deduction under section 80IC of the Act on Miscellaneous Income, Insurance claim and income from sale of scrap. However, following the parity of reasoning as in the earlier year, we find no merit in the claim of the assessee vis-ŕ-vis deduction under section 80IC of the Act in respect of the interest received from HIMUDA, interest on IT refunds and award received from Government. However, in respect of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation Gain we hold that the is directly linked to the business activity and consequently, the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Allowing entire deduction under section 80I(C) which includes the income from Job Work and Other Income - Held that:- In view of the claim of the assessee being allowed from year to year we find no merit in the stand of the Assessing Officer in the present year in the absence of any change in the fact situation. We are in agreement with the order of the CIT (Appeals) in this regard. - Decided against revenue. Allowing the deduction u/s 80IC in respect of 'Job Work Income" - Held that:- Following the order of the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself in the earlier years relating to assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT (Appeals)- Decided against revenue. Allowing the deduction u/s 80IC in respect of 'Other Income' accrued to the assessee on account of income like interest received from Housing Board, Interest income from IT Refund, miscellaneous income, insurance claim and income from sale of scrap etc. - Held that:- similar issue arose before the Tribunal in assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09 and the claim of the assessee vis-ŕ-vis deduction under section 80IC of the Act on the aforesaid income has been allowed to the assessee. Following the same we uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals). However, we find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had only allowed the claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act on other income i.e. miscellaneous income, income from sale of scrap and insurance claim and not on the interest income received from Housing Board and IT refunds. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue in this regard are thus misplaced and we uphold the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in allowing the claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act on Miscellaneous income, insurance claim received and income from sale of scrap. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance u/s 24 (A) - CIT(A) deleted disallowance directing to treat receipts from M/s Hankel Teroson India Ltd., as rental income - Held that:- The income from letting out of premises in the case of the appellant has been assessed under the head 'income from house property' right from A.Y. 2003-04. Thus entirely in agreement with the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that sharing of common expenses has nothing to do with the letting out of the premises, since these two are different areas. The appellant has not been claiming depreciation on the said premises over the past so many years and for this reason also it would not be appropriate to disturb the head under which the impugned income should be assessed. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is accordingly deleted - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of expenditure incurred on laying down of PU coating on floor - Held that:- expenditure incurred on laying down of PU coating on floor which admittedly has a short life span and the same cannot be held to increase the life span of the building. We find no merit in the orders the authorities below and reversing the same, we hold that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is duly allowable as revenue expenditure - Decided in favour of assessee.
|