TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d sufficient interest free funds were available. CIT passed the order u/s.263 of the Act against this deletion of interest. As per the instructions in the order u/s.263, the Assessing Officer passed fresh order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 and recomputed the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D and restricted the disallowance to ₹ 1,95,95,619/-. Therefore, the assessee filed fresh appeal against this order and the matter is still pending before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the present scenario, this ground raised before the Tribunal becomes infructuous. Depreciation on Printers, UPS Other allied items - HELD THAT:- We observe that in assessment year 2009-10 the Co-ordinate Bench has upheld the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in allowing depreciation @ 60% on UPS and other allied items. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in assessment year under appeal has granted relief to the assessee by following its own order in assessment year 2009-10. We find no infirmity in the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue Disallowance u/s.40A(2) in respect of commission paid to Directors - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue was considered by the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TA No.407/PUN/2015 for the assessment year 2011-12 for adjudication. ITA No.407/PUN/2015 ( By Assessee) A.Y.2011-12 3. In ITA No.407/PUN/2015, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. Disallowance out of Aircraft Expenses ₹ 83,85,796/-. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the aircraft were used for non-business purposes when it was averred before him that the aircrafts are used for business purposes and there is no element of personal use at all. 2. Disallowance of Expenses u/s. 14A ₹ 6,92,39,354/-. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance of ₹ 6,92,39,354/- u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D in Principle. He ought to have deleted the disallowance in its entirety. In any case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating assessee s contentions, factual background and settled case law in respect of disallowance of interest expenditure u/s. 14A. The Disallowance of interest is totally wrong. The assessee has sufficient interest free fund available. The AO considered finance charges for disallowance. There are cal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal in ITA No. 877/PN/2012 for assessment year 2004-05 has restricted the disallowance of expenditure on Aircraft to 15%. Since, the facts in assessment year under appeal and reason for disallowance is identical, respectfully following the order of Tribunal in assessee s own case, we deem it appropriate to modify the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue and restrict the disallowance to 15%. Accordingly, ground No. 2 of the appeal is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid. Thereafter, the Ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the disallowance may be restricted to 15% as per the view taken by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the earlier year. 8. The Ld. DR fairly conceded to these facts on record. 9. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. We find this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case (supra.) wherein this disallowance has been restricted to 15%. Both the parties agreed that facts and circumstances for this relevant assessment year is absolutely similar to assessment year 2010-11 and therefore, maintaining pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ems do not fall within the definition of computers. 2. Disallowance u/s. 40A(2) Commission paid to Directors ₹ 4,82,56,000/-. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 4,82,55,000/- made u/s. 40A(2) out of the commission paid to Directors without justifying the reasonableness of the payment to Directors? 3. Addition to Capital Subsidy ₹ 86,73,56,670/-. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in holding that subsidy received from Maharashtra Govt. Under Package Scheme of Incentive, 2001 is capital receipt while during the course of scrutiny, the AO observed that major amount of the subsidy received by the assessee company is by way of reimbursement of taxes paid i.e. VAT to the State Govt. And hence taxable revenue receipt? 4. Disallowance out of Aircraft Expenses restricted to 25% to ₹ 83,85,796/-. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the expenditur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) in allowing depreciation @ 60% on UPS and other allied items. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in assessment year under appeal has granted relief to the assessee by following its own order in assessment year 2009-10. We find no infirmity in the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue. Accordingly, the same is upheld and ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed. 19. The Ld. DR fairly conceded that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 20. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. We have also considered the judicial pronouncements placed before us on record. We observe that this issue has been consistently decided in favour of the assessee from A.Y. 2009-10 onwards and the Ld.CIT(Appeal) for this year gave relief to the assessee in view of these facts on records. That further, for assessment year 2010-11 in assessee‟s own case, the Tribunal had upheld the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeal) on this issue giving relief to the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following our findings and on similarity of facts and circumstances, we sustain the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal is with respect to disallowance of commission u/s. 40A(2) of the Act, paid to the Directors. We find that this issue was considered by the Tribunal in appeal by Revenue in assessee s case in assessment year 2009-10. The commission paid to the Directors was allowed by the Tribunal. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue. Accordingly, the same is upheld and ground No. 4 of the appeal is dismissed. 25. The Ld. DR fairly conceded that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case (supra.) 26. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. We find this issue has been consistently decided in favour of the assessee in the earlier assessment years and in this present year also, the facts being similar, we do not find any infirmity with the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeal) and the relief provided to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is sustained. Thus, ground No.2 raised in appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. 27. Ground No.3 pertains to addition to capital sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und No. 8 of the appeal is dismissed. 31. That on perusal of the entire documents on record and the findings of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in earlier years, we do not find any infirmity with the findings of the ld. CIT(Appeal) and the relief provided to the assessee is sustained. Thus, ground No.3 raised in appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. 32. Ground No.4 pertains to disallowance of Aircraft expenses- restricted to 25% to ₹ 83,85,796/-. This issue is similar to the ground No.1 raised in assessee‟s appeal in ITA No.407/PUN/2015. Both the parties agreed that the facts and circumstances for both these appeals are similar and identical. Therefore, our decision rendered in ITA No.407/PUN/2015 while adjudicating Ground No.1 shall apply mutatis-mutandis on this issue also. Thus, ground No.4 raised in appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed. 33. Ground No.5 is with regard to disallowance of provision for warranty of ₹ 26,63,90,572/-. 34. The Assessing Officer discussed this issue elaborately in assessment order vide Para 9 and inferred that based on historical trends t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k Contrals India Pvt. Ltd. reported as 314 ITR 62 and the decision of Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Dana India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1805/PN/2012 for assessment year 2006-07 decided on 22-10-2013. The findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was accepted by the Department and were not agitated in appeal before the Tribunal. This factual position has not been controverted by the Department. The First Appellate Authority has granted relief to the assessee by following its order in assessment year 2009-10. The facts in assessment year under appeal are identical, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue. Accordingly, the same are upheld and ground No. 7 of the appeal is dismissed. 37. We have perused case records and considered the judicial pronouncements placed before us. We find even for A.Y.2010-11 (supra.) also, the Tribunal has provided relief to the assessee on the issue. Therefore, respectfully, following the findings of the Tribunal for assessment year 2010-11 in assessee‟s own case, we sustain the relief granted to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(Appeal). Thus, ground No.5 raised in ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
