Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 917 - ITAT AHMEDABADDisallowance u/s.14A - Held that:- The proportionate disallowance under section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards. In this case, the assessment year involved is 2006-07, therefore the disallowance of administrative expenses is not justified. Hence, the AO is directed to delete the addition of ₹ 50,000/- as sustained by the ld.CIT(A). In respect of the disallowance on interest portion since the assessee was having sufficient interest-free funds, therefore the disallowance of interest part is not justified in the light oN the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT reported at (2008 (2) TMI 19 - Supreme Court), decision of Torrent Financiers vs. ACIT [2001 (6) TMI 165 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A] and CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported at (2009 (1) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY) . Therefore, we direct the AO to delete the addition made on the interest expenses. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of depreciation on the membership of the Stock Exchange - Held that:- Under the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) depreciation is allowable on certain intangible assets such as know how, patents, copy rights and license etc. Earlier the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in case of Techno Shares and Stock Ltd. (2009 (9) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) had held that stock exchange card was not covered under section 32(1)(ii) and therefore depreciation was not allowable. However the said judgment of the Bombay High Court has recently been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [2010 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] in the same case and it was held that stock exchange card is akin to a license and therefore it is covered under section 32(1)(ii) and depreciation is allowable. We therefore respectfully following the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, set aside the order of CIT(A) and allowed the claim of the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee.
|