TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Depreciation on wind measure equipment – Failure to prove that the assets have commissioned and put to use – Held that:- The Tribunal rightly noted that similar evidence produced by the assessee also for met masts put to use up to February 2009 was accepted by the AO as evidence for date of put to use of met masts - when AO itself accepted and considered the certificate as evidence sufficient to prove that the assets were commissioner and put to use for the purpose of business during the year, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error and deleting the disallowance u/s 32 of the Act – Decoded against Revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 657 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 21-7-2014 - M. R. Shah and K. J. Thaker,JJ. For the Petitioner : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, was of the opinion that the interest paid to the aforesaid three companies - related companies at the rate of 12% is excessive, unreasonable and therefore, covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act and consequently disallowed the sum of ₹ 1,22,13,280/under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee. The AO also disallowed the depreciation of Met Mas (Wind Measurement Equipment) by holding that assessee failed to prove that said assets were commissioned and put to use for the purpose of business during the year under consideration. 2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of assessment passed by the learned AO making disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that such payment of interest at the rate of 12% to the related companies was not found in excess of the market rate. It is submitted that under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act while considering the excess / unreasonable payment the market rate cannot be considered to be the sole criteria. It is submitted that in the present case when it was found that with respect to other companies the interest was paid at the rate of 10% and to the related parties the interest was paid at the rate of 12% that itself was a good ground to hold that interest paid to the related parties at the rate of 12% p.a. was excessive and unreasonable. It is submitted that therefore, the learned AO was justified in making disallowance of the aforesaid interest und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contention on behalf of the revenue that as such the company paid the interest at different rates from different persons / companies and therefore, the same was rightly disallowed under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. However, it is required to be noted that except aforesaid there was no basis for the AO to come to the conclusion that amount of interest paid at the rate of 12% would relate to the concerned parties was otherwise excessive and / or unreasonable. It is not the case on behalf of the revenue that considering the market rate the aforesaid interest charged at the rate of 12% can be said to be excessive and / or unreasonable. Under the circumstances, solely because the assessee for whatever reasons / consideration charged the int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
