Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 45 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation on leased out assets - Held that:- As decided in assesee's own case the assessee is entitled for the claim of depreciation under all the three circumstance i.e. Sale lease back, genuineness of transaction and asset having being put to use. We, therefore, allow ground of the assessee’s appeal Broken period interest - whether not a part of the cost of securities and should not have been allowed as deduction - Held that:- As in assessee’s own case, we find that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of American Express International Banking Corporation [2002 (9) TMI 96 - BOMBAY High Court ] wherein held that the assessee's method of accounting does not result in loss of tax/revenue for the Department Addition u/s 14A - Held that:- AO has not recorded the satisfaction as to how the claim of the assessee is wrong with reference to the books of account of the assessee. We are therefore convinced with the submissions of the assessee on this score and are in agreement with the arguments of the ld.AR that for the invocation of provisions of section 14A r.w. rule 8D is not mandatory unless and until the AO has recorded his satisfaction. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of the Honb’le High Court rendered in Godrej and Boyce (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ), wherein it has been held that for invocation of provisions of section 14A, the AO has to record satisfaction. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the addition. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
|