TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 1010X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 115JB of the Act under MAT computation - This tribunal s Special Bench decision in ACIT Vs Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd. [ 2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] has already settled the law that such a disallowance is not to be included in the MAT computation. We thus decline Revenue s third substantive ground s argument as well. Admission of additional claim without filing a revised return - additional depreciation - Addition being balance 10% on the cost of machinery which was put to use for less than 180 days during the preceding year - HELD THAT:- We find no merit in the Revenue s grievance. We make it clear that the hon ble apex court s decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. [ 2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] holds that same does not impinge upon the appellate authorities jurisdiction vested under the provisions of the Act. Hon ble jurisdictional high court in Budhewal Co-operative Society Ltd. [ 2013 (5) TMI 802 - ITAT CHANDIGARH ] also holds that a tax payer is very much entitled to raise an additional claim without filing a revised return. The Revenue s pleadings nowhere indicate that there is any distinction on facts since the assessee s identical additional depreciatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spectively. It transpires at the outset with the able assistance of both the learned representatives that the Assessing Officer had invoked direct, proportionate interest and administrative expenses disallowance of ₹ 1,34,422/-, ₹ 21,11,348/- and ₹ 3,42,967; respectively aggregating to ₹ 25,88,737/- under Rule 8D(2)(i) to (iii) of the Income Tax Rules as against the suo moto disallowance of ₹ 3,44,620/- offered at the tax Payer s behest. The assessee had admitedly derived exempt income from dividends of ₹ 8,86,816/- in the relevant previous year. The CIT(A) has restricted the same to the extent of assessee s exempt income only i.e. ₹ 8,86,616/- going by hon ble jurisdictional high court s decision Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017) 78 taxmann.com 65 (P H). 4. The Revenue s only argument during the course of hearing is that the hon ble Apex Court decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) has already settled the law that such a disallowance relating to an assessee s exempt income has to be made. We do not find any merit in the Revenue s foregoing contention. We make it clear that the issue before us is not that of application but computa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alongwith name of all the parties to whom commission was paid. The appellant replied. Ongoing through the said detail the AO observed that in case of some amounts the commission still remained unpaid. The appellant was confronted and was show caused vide order sheet entry why the amount of unpaid commission may not be disallowed and added to the income of the appellant. The AR of the appellant replied that the unpaid commission was on account of dispute and agreed for addition subject to its claim towards expenses in subsequent years as and when the dispute is resolved. Hence, the Assessing Officer disallowed the said claim which comes to ₹ 5,21,583/- and added to the income of the appellant. 6.2 At the time of Appellate proceedings, the Ld. Counsel of the appellant has filed its written submissions on 06.09.2017 which is reproduced as under:- That during the year under appeal, the appellant claimed additional depreciation u/s 32(l)(iia) of the Act. However, during the assessment proceedings, further additional depreciation of Rs.l,86,81,037/-was claimed on the machinery installed and put to use in the preceding year, which was used less than 180 days and the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be given to the assessing officer to further allow additional depreciation of ₹ 7,57,48,356/- as also held by Worthy CIT(A), Ludhiana in Assessment Year 2013-14 in its appellate order in case of Group Company is enclosed as Annexure-12. 6.3 I have carefully considered the appellant's submissions, this issue has already been considered and allowed in the case of the assessee itself in Assessment Year 2013-14 by CIT(A). Copy of which was also placed alongwith written submissions. In the said order, the CIT(A) at Para 8.5 has held as under:- I have carefully considered the appellant's submissions. The appellant had made this claim of additional depreciation through letter dated 14.02.2014. The AO has disallowed this claim on the ground that the claim was not made in the return of income. Therefore, the claim made by letter filed during the course of assessment proceedings was held to be not allowable. The only issue to be considered is whether such claim made during the course of assessment proceedings through a letter and not through revised return was a valid claim. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of Budhewal Co-operative Society Ltd. In this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
