9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer came to know that the working made by the assessee is not in accordance with Rule 8D, then it is open to the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance/expenditure and add the same to the total income of the assessee. With the above observation, the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed. Addition on account of unexpired value of AMC - Held that:- This Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2005-06 found that the contention of the assessee that it could not recognize revenue for the unexpired period of AMC is on strong footing. This Tribunal further found that the unexpired period AMC could be considered only in the subsequent year and not in the relevant previous year. Accordingly, an identical order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the remaining 10% additional depreciation during the year under consideration. - I.T.A. No. 16/Mds/2016, C. O. No. 35/Mds/2016 - - - Dated:- 12-5-2016 - Shri N. R. S. Ganesan, Judicial Member And Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member For the Department : Shri P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT For the Assessee : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ORDER Per N. R. S. Ganesan, Judicial Member This appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai, dated 27.10.2015 for assessment year 2011-12. 2. Shri P. Radhakrishnan ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the first issue ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te value of investment. Referring to limb (iii) of Rule 8D(2), the ld. Counsel submitted that the average investment includes the contribution to the units of TVS Shriram Growth Fund whose income was subject to taxation in the hands of the company u/s 115JU of the Act. Therefore, the taxable income has to be excluded while computing the expenditure under Rule 8D. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. The Assessing Officer computed the expenditure u/s 14A r.w.r 8D at ` 1,99,53,980/-. The assessee apparently filed a working for disallowance under Rule 8D. As per the working of the assessee, the expenditure comes to only ` 50,363/-. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t against the order of this Tribunal for assessment year 2005-06 and the same is pending. Therefore, to keep the matter alive, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 8. We heard Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, ld. Counsel for the assessee also. The ld. Counsel submitted that the issue arises for consideration is unexpired value of AMC received during the year under consideration. According to the ld. Counsel, the assessee could not recognize the revenue for the unexpired value of AMC. According to the ld. Counsel, in view of the matching concept of income and expenditure, the assessee could not recognize the revenue during the unexpired period. This Tribunal after examining an identical situation in the assessee s own case for the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the order of this Tribunal is stayed by the High Court. In those circumstances, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of this CIT(A) and accordingly the same is confirmed. 10. Now coming to the cross objection of the assessee, the only issue raised by the assessee is additional depreciation. 11. Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee claimed additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia)of the Act in respect of the machinery installed in earlier assessment year and used for business of the assessee less than 180 days. According to the ld. Counsel, the assessee is entitled for additional depreciation @ 20% in the earlier assessment year. The Assessing Officer could not al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rused the material available on record. The Assessing Officer allowed 10% additional depreciation in the earlier assessment year in respect of the machinery installed and used for less than 180 days. The assessee claimed the balance 10% additional depreciation during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that there is no provision in the Income-tax Act, 1961 to carry forward the additional depreciation to the subsequent assessment year. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by placing reliance on the order of this Tribunal in the case of Brakes India(supra). We find that the Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Rittal India Pvt. Ltd(supra) considered an identi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
