TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount, we will take the ground raised in Revenue s appeal in assessment year 2000-01 as under:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the disallowance made of ₹ 6,52,56,469/- out of depreciation on assets of sale and lease back transactions. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a copy of Tribunal s order in assessee s own case, wherein exactly on similar transactions and on exactly identical facts, the Tribunal has decided the issue by giving following finding in para- 6 as under:- 6. We have heard learned DR and learned AR. We noticed that the assessee entered into five lease transactions with GSRTC. They are first transaction was in financial year 1993-94 when, depreciation was claimed at ₹ 59,97,155/-. The second lease transaction was also entered into in A.Y. 1994-95 wherein depreciation of ₹ 40,18,720/- was claimed and allowed. The third lease transaction was entered into in F.Y. 1996-97 on which the depreciation approx. of ₹ 2,00,06,325/- was claimed. Forth transaction took place in A.Y. 1998-99 in which depreciation of ₹ 4,01,38,576/- was claimed and allowed. Fifth also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the outset, it is noticed that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Tribunal of Chandrigarh B Bench in the case of Phillips India Ltd. V. ACIT (2005) 92 ITD 441 (Chd.), wherein the Tribunal has held as under:- 19. Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case into consideration, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in not giving the set off of MAT credit in working out the tax payable by the assessee for the purpose of determination of payment of advance tax and consequently for the purpose of levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C. We accordingly set aside his order as well as the order of the CIT(A) and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is directed to recalculate the interest, if any, payable under sections 234B and 234C as per this decision. We direct accordingly. Respectfully following, the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Phillips India Ltd.(supra), we allow the claim of the assessee. Hence, this issue of the Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 7. The next issue in this appeal of Revenue in ITA No.2158/Ahd/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for this the Revenue has raised the following grounds No.3 and 4:- 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in restricting the disallowance made u/s.14A of the Income-tax Act of ₹ 2,70,908/- to ₹ 27,804/- being the proportionate disallowance of administrative expenses. 4. The appeal filed by the department against the order of Ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2001-02 on similar issue is pending before the Hon ble ITAT and the grounds of appeal raised in that year be permitted to refer and rely for the year under appeal. 11. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee as well as Ld. DR fairly agreed that in view of the view taken by this Tribunal in assessee s own case in ITA No.403/Ahd/2005 for assessment year 2001-02 dated 10-07-2009, wherein the Tribunal has disallowed the proportionate administrative expenses at 1% by giving following finding:- 10. We have heard learned DR and learned AR. This is undisputed fact that the administrative expenses have been incurred on tax free securities. The AO disallowed pro rata expenses at ₹ 92.97 lakhs as per the working given by him and referred above. The claim of administrative expenses and o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing the ITAT s decision in the case of Gujarat Gas Services Ltd. v. ACIT 115 ITD 218 (Ahd) has rejected the claim of the assessee. Respectfully following the Tribunal s decision in assessee s own case, we reject this ground of the CO of the assessee. 16. The next issue in CO of assessee s is as regards to charging of interest u/s.234B of the Act. 17. We find that this issue has already been dealt with in assessee s own case in ITA No.229/Ahd/2005 for assessment year 2001-02 in para-13, wherein the Tribunal has held as under:- 13. Fourth issue relates to charging of interest under Section 234B and 234D of the Act. The assessee claimed that it paid advance tax on the basis of the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Datamatics Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 110 ITR 24. The Tribunal has followed that decision in Haryana Warehousing Corpn vs. DCIT, 75 ITD 155. Similar view was taken by Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K.K. Marketing, 278 ITR 596 and by Hon ble Uttarnchal High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sedcon Forex International Drilling Co., 264 ITR 320. Learned AR submitted that since the assessee was in bona fide belief that particular amount of income was not taxab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
