Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax Versus M/s TVS Electronics Ltd.

2016 (7) TMI 250 - ITAT CHENNAI

Disallowance of 14A - Held that:- The provisions of Rule 8D is mandatory for computing the disallowance during the year under consideration. Therefore, the working made by the assessee has also to be taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer. Since the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the working made by the assessee, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority. However, it is made clear that the Assessing Officer shall verify th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Held that:- This Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2005-06 found that the contention of the assessee that it could not recognize revenue for the unexpired period of AMC is on strong footing. This Tribunal further found that the unexpired period AMC could be considered only in the subsequent year and not in the relevant previous year. Accordingly, an identical order of the CIT(A) was confirmed by this Tribunal. As rightly submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the CIT(A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

his Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of this CIT(A) and accordingly the same is confirmed. - Entitlement to additional depreciation - AO allowed 10% additional depreciation in the earlier assessment year in respect of the machinery installed and used for less than 180 days - assessee claimed the balance 10% additional depreciation during the year under consideration - Held that:- We find that the Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Rittal India Pvt. Ltd (2015 ( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er consideration. - I.T.A. No. 16/Mds/2016, C. O. No. 35/Mds/2016 - Dated:- 12-5-2016 - Shri N. R. S. Ganesan, Judicial Member And Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member For the Department : Shri P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT For the Assessee : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ORDER Per N. R. S. Ganesan, Judicial Member This appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai, dated 27.10.2015 for asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee. According to the ld. DR, since the assessee has not claimed any expenditure in respect of the income which was exempt from taxation, the Assessing Officer has rightly computed the expenditure by applying Rule 8D of the Incometax Rules. In the absence of any error in the expenditure computed by the Assessing Officer under Rule 8D, the CIT(A) is not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the working made by the assessee. 4. On the contrary, Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, ld. Couns .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under Rule 8D while working out the disallowance. However, the Assessing Officer has taken the aggregate value of investment. Referring to limb (iii) of Rule 8D(2), the ld. Counsel submitted that the average investment includes the contribution to the units of TVS Shriram Growth Fund whose income was subject to taxation in the hands of the company u/s 115JU of the Act. Therefore, the taxable income has to be excluded while computing the expenditure under Rule 8D. 5. We have considered the rival .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the provisions of Rule 8D is mandatory for computing the disallowance during the year under consideration. Therefore, the working made by the assessee has also to be taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer. Since the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the working made by the assessee, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority. However, it is made clear that the Assessing Offic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h regard to addition on account of unexpired value of AMC. 7. Shri P. Radhakrishnan, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the CIT(A), by following the order of this Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 2005-06 allowed the claim of the assessee. The Revenue has already filed an appeal before the Madras High Court against the order of this Tribunal for assessment year 2005-06 and the same is pending. Therefore, to keep the matter alive, the Revenue filed the appeal before .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ibunal after examining an identical situation in the assessee s own case for the assessment year 2005-06, allowed the claim of the assessee. In fact, the CIT(A), after reproducing the observation made by this Tribunal for assessment year 2005-06 in I.T.A.No.811/Mds/2010, allowed the claim of the assessee. Merely because the Revenue s appeal is pending before the Madras High Court, that cannot be a reason to take a different view. 9. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and als .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

levant previous year. Accordingly, an identical order of the CIT(A) was confirmed by this Tribunal. As rightly submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the CIT(A) has reproduced the observation made by this Tribunal and allowed the claim of the assessee. Since the CIT(A) followed the order of this Tribunal, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). As rightly submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee a mere pendency of appeal before the High Court against the order o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ditional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia)of the Act in respect of the machinery installed in earlier assessment year and used for business of the assessee less than 180 days. According to the ld. Counsel, the assessee is entitled for additional depreciation @ 20% in the earlier assessment year. The Assessing Officer could not allow 20% depreciation since the machinery was used for less than 180 days. In fact, the Assessing Officer allowed only 10% of the additional depreciation, therefore, the balanc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

set of facts, the Karnataka High Court allowed the additional depreciation in the next assessment year. In view of the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, according to the ld. Counsel, the CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee. 12. On the contrary, Shri P. Radhakrishnan, ld. DR submitted that the assessee claimed additional depreciation which could not be allowed in the earlier assessment year to the extent of 10%. The CIT(A) by following the order of this Tribunal in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version