Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 1247 - ITAT CHENNAIDisallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Held that:- Application of provisions of Rule 8D notified with effect from 24.03.2008 would apply with effect from assessment year 2008-09, which was not found to have been reversed by the Higher Court, the question of restriction of disallowance @ 2% as well as application of the above said notification whether from retrospectively or prospectively does not arise. Further, the same Division Bench with same combination, in the case of M/s. TVS Motor Company Ltd. v. JCIT [2016 (6) TMI 586 - ITAT CHENNAI] has decided that Rule 8D shall be applicable from the assessment year 2008-09 onwards by following various decision of the “C” Bench of the Tribunal [same combination]. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore that of the AO. Disallowance of bad debt written off - loan advanced to sister concern/subsidiary as bad debts - Held that:- In this case, the assessee has not explained any efforts stated to have been made for recovery of the advances. Further, in view of the provisions of section 36(2)(i) of the Act, no such deduction shall be allowed unless such debt or part thereof has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off of an earlier previous year, or represents money lent in the ordinary course of the business of banking or money - lending which is carried on by the assessee. In the appellate order, the ld. CIT(A) has given detailed findings, which have been reproduced hereinabove, and we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Restriction of the claim of R & D expenditure under section 35(2AB) - Held that:- In view of the specific provisions laid out under section 35(2AB)(2) of the Act that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of the expenditure mentioned in clause (1) of section 35(2AB) of the Act, under any other provisions of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, once the assessee claimed the R&D expenditure under section 35(2AB), the assessee cannot claim any deduction under section 35(2) of the Act for the same expenditure. When the statute is very clear, there is no ground for the assessee to claim the deduction. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly rejected the ground raised by the assessee and thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
|