Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 157 - ITAT MUMBAIDisallowance towards interest u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D - Held that:- In the absence of any material on record to contradict the findings of the learned CIT(A) the Revenue cannot challenge the order of the CIT(A) merely on the ground that the assessee has not furnished documentary proof that borrowed funds were not utilised for the purpose of investments. The learned CIT(A) also perused the bank documents in regard to the loan/credit facilities given to the assessee. In so far as the credit facility obtained for the purpose of working capital is concerned there cannot be any dispute that interest thereon cannot be attributed to investments made by the assessee and hence computation of disallowance u/s 14A is not permissible thereon. – Matter is sent for recomputation of disallowance to AO, if any. Rejection of claim of additional deprecation related to purchase of plant & machinery – Revenue appeal - Held that:- After perusal of material records and papers it highlights that the freight charges and other charges are directly linked to the purchase of plant and machinery and cannot be delinked. It is not in dispute that normal depreciation was allowed by the AO by treating the impugned expenditure as part of the expenditure incurred on plant and machinery since the impugned expenditure was capitalised and treated as part of cost of plant and machinery. It is also not in dispute that the plant and machinery was used for manufacturing purpose and in fact the AO has allowed additional depreciation on the plant and machinery. Therefore it is illogical to hold that the assessee is entitled to normal depreciation on plant and machinery including freight charges, etc. but with regard to additional depreciation it should not be treated as part of cost of plant and machinery. Therefore, the findings of the learned CIT(A) is justified and upheld. Assessee is entitled for additional depreciation.
|