Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1532 - ITAT PUNEDeduction under section 36(1)(vii) in respect of provisions for bad and doubtful debts - Held that:- The SC in the case of Vijya Bank vs. CIT [2010 (4) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT ] has held that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is allowable as deduction in as much as what is necessary is to write off to P & L A/c and it is not necessary to credit the debtors account. Thus we deem it appropriate to remit this issue back to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh in the light of the decision rendered above - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Exemption under section 10(33) in respect of dividend income on Master shares and other units of Unit Trust of India ('UTI) - Held that:- The dividend received on various units of UTI by the assessee cannot be equated with the dividend earned on shares of a company. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Computation of relief under Section 80HHC - Held that:- The issue has already decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in the assessment year 1997-98 Amount received as rent from Sai Service has been reduced twice - said amount has been shown twice, in miscellaneous income and as well as separately as rent from Sai Service - Held that:- We deem it appropriate to remit this issue back to Assessing Officer for limited purpose of verification. If the amount has been deducted twice the necessary correction may be carried out to deduct the aforesaid amount only once Addition of interest income paid to Incometax Department - Held that:- The issue relating to interest income paid to the Department has been decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for previous assessemnt year Deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act in respect of lump sum know how fees - Held that:- In view of introduction of provisions of section 35AB of the Act which were inserted by the Finance Act, 1985 w.e.f. 01.04.1986, we are of the view that in cases of payment of lump sum consideration for acquiring technical know-how, the provisions of section 35AB of the Act are attracted and the expenditure is not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act, which is general provision and specifically excludes expenditure covered under sections 30 to 36 of the Act. Consequently, the said expenditure is to be amortized under section 35AB of the Act and cannot be allowed as a deduction in the year in which the liability to pay the said amount accrues. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Drilcos (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) had held that after insertion of section 35AB of the Act, where the expenditure is to be used in business of assessee, section 35AB of the Act would come into play and the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act are not applicable for units established prior to 01.04.1998.Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that provisions of section 35AB of the Act are to be applied to the lump sum consideration paid for acquisition of technical know-how by the assessee. Deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act on account of exchange fluctuation loss - Held that:- We are of the view that if the exchange fluctuation loss has been wrongly computed, the same has to be reworked. We deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-computing exchange fluctuation loss and arrive at the correct amount of deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Act.
|