Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 913 - MADRAS HIGH COURTEntitlement for deduction of provision made of Non Performing Assets considered irrecoverable - Held that:- Issue covered against the assessee by the judgment of the Supreme Court in SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED v. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2010 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) as held keeping in mind an important role assigned to banks in our market economy, we are of the view that the restriction, if any placed on NBFC by not giving them the benefit of deduction, satisfies the principle of "reasonable justification" Applicability of Section 234D - Tribunal confirming the order of the CIT (A) after holding that Section 234D introduced with effect from 01.06.2003 by Finance Act, 2003 cannot apply to the assessment year under consideration - Held that:- Despite recording the fact that section, 234D introduced with effect from 1.6.2003 by Finance Act, 2003, cannot have retrospective effect, the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in this regard. But, unfortunately, the appellant herein did not take up the matter before the Tribunal as against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore, we cannot allow the appellant to raise this question. There is also one more reason for us not to take up that issue. After all, the Tribunal has remitted the matter back. Therefore, if permissible in law, it is open to the appellant to take advantage of the finding of the Tribunal. Depreciation claim - whether benefit of higher rate of depreciation under the third proviso to section 34(1) is available even to motor cars, by virtue of explanation (a) under section 32(1)- assessee is a NBFC engaged in the purchase and leasing of commercial vehicles - ITAT remanded to reexamine the case - Held that:- As seen from para 21 of the decision ICDS LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2013 (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT) SC drew a distinction between a simple lease of vehicles and a hire purchase agreement entered into by such Finance Companies with prospective buyers. The nature of the agreement that the appellant generally enters into with its customers, is not borne out by records. Therefore, the remand order for examining this question, which is essentially, a question of fact, cannot be interfered with. If, after going through the agreements that the appellant has entered into with its customers, the assessing officer considers that the case of the appellant is similar to the decision of the Supreme Court in ICDS, he would certainly grant the benefit to the appellant. But, if it is not so, the appellant may not be entitled
|