Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 1384 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - HELD THAT - It is apparent that the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act is not applicable for the assessment year in question i.e. 2006-2007 and was to be applicable from the assessment year 2008-09 onwards. The Bombay High Court has settled law in this connection in case Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . No doubt the expenditure incurred to earn the exempt income is liable to be disallowed on reasonable basis by providing the reasonable opportunity to the assessee in accordance with the law specifically in view of the observations made by the Hon ble Bombay High Court (Supra). Accordingly this issue is hereby restored to the file of Assessing Officer to re-examine the matter afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the Assessee. Disallowance of expenditure incurred by the Appellant in respect of reimbursement of property taxes to Precision Component(P) Ltd.(PCPL) - HELD THAT - As A.R. contended the reimbursement of property tax partakes the character of rent only. There is merit in its said contention also. Hence what is required to be seen is as to whether to aggregate amount of rent plus reimbursements compares well with the earlier years payment. If it does not compare well then it is the duty of the assessee to justify the payment this issue required fresh examination at the end of Assessing Officer. Accordingly we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh examination. Expenditure incurred upon the advertisement and promotion - HELD THAT - Keeping in view of the argument advanced by the learned representative of the parties and perusing the record it is observed that this matter of controversy has already been adjudicated by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the assessee s own case 2008 (4) TMI 535 - ITAT MUMBAI Moreover this matter of controversy has also been adjudicated by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in assessee s own case for the A.Y. 1998-99 wherein such expenditure has been treated as revenue expenditure. Commission accrued to the assessee on the date of actual receipt of commission or on the date of payment by the client directly to the principal and not on the raising of invoices - when the commission received by the assessee company is required to be taxed - HELD THAT - No doubt the A.O. disallowed the same but the Hon ble Tribunal in his judgment as Star India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2006 (7) TMI 569 - ITAT MUMBAI found justifiable to tax an amount at the time of receipt and appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in 2009 (3) TMI 990 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . No doubt in the said circumstance the ground raised by revenue does not seems justifiable therefore we have arrived at this conclusion that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order correctly and judiciously on this issue which does not require to be interfered with at this appellate stage. Hence this issue is in decided in favour of the assessee. Allowance of depreciation @ 60% on computer peripherals like rack printer port routers cord etc. - HELD THAT - This controversy has been decided by the Tribunal in case filed as DCIT Vs. Datacraft India Ltd. 2010 (7) TMI 642 - ITAT MUMBAI and by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi while the deciding the case of CIT Vs. BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. 2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT . The plea which has been taken by the revenue is that the depreciation which has been allowed @ 60% and the value of the paper and other materials is higher but the matter has been considered by the learned CIT(A) who allowed the same on the basis of the assessment held in the year of 2003-04 2004-05 and 2005-06. Determination of arm s length compensation as per order of the Transfer Pricing Officer(T.P.O) - HELD THAT - In view of the report of Transfer Pricing Officer no adjustment was made to declare the arm s length price by the assessee therefore in view of the said circumstance no addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment was being made to taxable income declined by the assessee. Nothing came into notice that the findings given by the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) were wrong against law and fact. Hence this issue is decided in favour of assessee and against the revenue.
|