9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 535 - HC - Income TaxCarry forward and set of the unabsorbed depreciation u/s 32(2) of the Act Effect of amendment under Finance Act 2001 w.e.f. 01.04.02 - ITAT decided the issue against the revenue - Held that - Considering the submission made and keeping in view the observations made by the learned Tribunal as quoted above, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order and find no case is made out to interfere with the same.
Issues:
Appeal against ITAT order dismissing revenue's appeal. Analysis: The High Court heard the appeal against the ITAT order dismissing the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal discussed the contention raised by the revenue regarding the addition made by disallowing compensation paid to lenders for de-rating. The assessing officer added income for unabsorbed depreciation, and even though the CIT (A) deleted the addition, it didn't make the assessing officer's action illegal if he added any other income chargeable to tax. The High Court cited decisions from Delhi and Mumbai High Courts where additions were deleted for issues not related to the proceedings under section 147. The High Court concluded that the assessing officer's actions were not illegal under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, dismissing the technical plea. The Tribunal then analyzed the expenditure incurred by a company that got amalgamated with the assessee regarding compensation paid to lenders for de-rating. The lenders suggested derating existing equity shares by 95% and converting part of the debt into equity. The compensation paid to lenders was to compensate for receiving shares at a higher price due to reduced de-rating. The High Court held that the expenditure was on capital account, not a revenue expenditure under section 37(1) or eligible for deduction under section 35DD. Various case laws were cited, showing that the compensation was not for facilitating business but for compensating share capital, making it a capital expenditure. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to interfere with the Tribunal's decision. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal as devoid of merits. All connected miscellaneous cases were also dismissed accordingly.
|
