Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2014 (2) TMI 1366

..... eciation could not be allowed on plant and machinery - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that assessee was engaged in manufacture of jute and paper related goods. Items on which depreciation is not allowable have been specifically set out in the proviso. Electrical installation does not fall within any of the provisos. Further definition of ‘plant’ given in section 43(3) of the Act is inclusive and even ships, vehicles, and books are considered as plant. If that be so, electrical installation is definitely part of a plant. In our opinion, ld. CIT(Appeals) was justified in allowing this claim of assessee. Decided against revenue Belated payments of Employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and ESI - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... ubsidiary of the assessee and Assessing Officer has not doubted the commercial expediency of such loans. We are, therefore, of the opinion that ld. CIT(Appeals) was justified in deleting this addition - Revenue appeal dismissed. - I.T.A. No.: 947/Kol./2012 Assessment year : 2008-2009 - 5-2-2014 - Shri Mahavir Singh (Judicial Member) and Shri Abraham P. George (Accountant Member) Shri Amit Kumar Maitra, JCIT, Sr. D.R, for the Department. Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan, Advocate, for the assessee. CORRIGENDUM ORDER Abraham P. Geroge : 1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, directed against an order dated 30.03.2012 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Kolkata, it has stressed five grounds, of which ground no. 5 is general, needs no adj .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... ant and machinery. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Eligibility for claiming of additional depreciation is set out under proviso to section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, which is reproduced hereunder:- (iia) In the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March, 2005, by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing [or in the business of generation or generation and distribution of power], further sum equal to twenty per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii): Provided that no deduction shall be allowed in re .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... e case of CIT -vs.-Vijay Shree Ltd. [ITA No. 245 of 2011 dated 16.09.2011] had held that amendment to second proviso to section 43B of the Act, as introduced by Finance Act, 2003 was curative and retrospectively applied from 1st April, 1988, relying on the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Alom Extrusions Limited [390 ITR 306]. Their Lordships held that Employees contribution paid beyond due date prescribed under Provident Fund Act and Rules were also deductible if the amounts were remitted prior to the due date of filing of the return. 9. We find that the aforesaid issue is covered by the decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court. There is no dispute that the payments were affected by the assessee before the d .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... bit balance and such debit balance had gone up on account of the cheque cleared by the subsidiary. Hence, as per the Assessing Officer, the amounts were given out of borrowed funds only. He, therefore, applied a rate of 12% on the additional loan of ₹ 1,63,58,483/- given during the relevant previous year and made an addition of ₹ 19,63,070/-. 13. In its appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), assessee primarily relying on the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. - vs.- CIT [288 ITR 1] submitted that the amounts were given to the subsidiary based on commercial expediency. As per the assessee, sources of funds were explained. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||