Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1294 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s. 80IB(4) in respect of Unit - II - assessee had obtained factory licence on 22.04.2004 i.e. after 31.03.2004 and hence the conditions prescribed for claiming deduction were not fulfilled by the assessee - HELD THAT:- The claim of the exemption of the assessee u/s 80IB has been accepted in A.Y. 2004-05, therefore, in the said circumstances, the exemption is not liable to be declined in subsequent year and in this regard we also find support in law settled in CIT Vs. Wester Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd. [2012 (8) TMI 709 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] & CIT Vs. Paul Brothers [1992 (10) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Claim of the assessee was also declined on account of this fact that the factory licence was taken on 22.04.2004 but it cannot ground to deny the exemption u/s 80IB and in this regard, we also find support in the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Jolly Polymers Vs. CIT [2015 (6) TMI 610 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Thus the finding of the CIT(A) on the issues is quite correct which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. - Decided against revenue Addition u/s 14A - CIT(A) restricted the expenditure to earn the exempt income to the extent of 10% dividend income - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the provisions of Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act is applicable subsequent to the A.Y. 2008-09. The present case is in connection with the A.Y. 2006-07. The assessee earned the exempt income in sum of ₹ 3,93,753/-. CIT(A) has restricted the expenditure to earn the exempt income to the extent of 10% dividend income which nowhere seems unjustifiable. Earlier to the period 2008-09 it was justifiable to earn the exempt income on reasonable basis unless satisfaction has been recorded by AO in the order. We also find support of law settled in case titled as CIT Vs. Essar Technology Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT] & Godrej & Boyce [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided against revenue Delayed payment of employee’s provident fund - disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) - assessee deposited the said amount before filing the return of income - HELD THAT:- AO has noticed that the assessee has not made the payment earlier to filing the return of income, therefore, the said amount was added to the income of the assessee. It is also not in dispute that the assessee deposited the said amount before filing the return of income. In this regard, the law has now been settled in CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. [2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . If the assessee deposit employee’s contribution funds before due date of filing the return, therefore, in the said circumstances, the claim of the assessee is not liable to be disallowed. - Decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. Addition u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2) - own fund more than investment - HELD THAT:- The presumption lies in favour of the assessee if the assessee have own fund more than investment than the assessee’s investment would be treated from his own fund to earn the exempt income. The CIT(A) has also relied upon the decision in the case of Reliance Industries [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] therefore, we are of the view that the finding of the CIT(A) is quite correct which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, these issues are decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue.
|