9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a wind mill has nothing to do with the power industry, namely, manufacture of oil seeds, etc., is totally not germane to the specific provision contained in section 32(1)(iia) of the Act.." - Decided against revenue Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) - Held that:- We find that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have specifically dealt with the assessee’s interest accounts statement reproduced hereinabove. The Assessing Officer’s findings alleging diversion of interest bearing funds prove to be contrary to the case record. Thus, we observe that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable and accept the assessee’s arguments. - Decided against revenue UPS device treated as a part of computer entitled for 60% depreciation. Sundaram Asset Management Co. Ltd. Versus DCIT [2014 (2) TMI 224 - ITAT CHENNAI ] Disallowance of expenditure pertaining to consignment sales - Held that:- The assessee has duly deducted TDS on these payments for claiming the same as expenditure. The authorities below observe that in assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, the assessee had contested non-deductibility of TDS and preferred appeals against the disallowance which have not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... article or a thing led to disallowance of the aforesaid additional depreciation of ₹ 26,40,000/-. 6. The CIT(A) has accepted the assessee s aforesaid claim of additional depreciation as under: 5.2 I have considered the submission of the appellant and have also gone through the decisions relied on by the appellant and I find that the issue of allowability of additional depreciation on windmills is squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the cases relied on by the appellant. The relevant extract of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 477 (MAD.) is reproduced as under: .. 5. In the case on hand, the assessee is stated to have set up two wind mills in addition to the already existing four wind mills and thereby increased its power generation capacity by above 50 per cent. It is true that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture of oil seeds, moulded rubber parts, reed value assemblies apart from generation of power. After the installation of the additional wind mills, both prior to as well as after the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the cases reported in 321 ITR 477 (Mad) and 187 Taxman 319 (Mad) I hold that the appellant is entitled to additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia). The AO is therefore directed to delete the disallowance made in this regard. The grounds of appeal, as they relate to this issue, are therefore allowed. Therefore, the Revenue is in appeal. 7. We have heard both the parties and gone through the case file. Relevant facts stand narrated. The Revenue supports the Assessing Officer s view that assessee s flour mill and windmill are distinct businesses for the purpose of additional depreciation to press for restoration of the impugned disallowance. The hon'ble jurisdictional high court (supra) has already rejected the Revenue s identical plea and held that this distinction sought to be drawn is totally not germane for granting additional depreciation benefit. The Revenue fails to draw any distinction on facts. In these circumstances, we affirm the CIT(A) s findings under challenge. The Revenue s grounds are rejected. I.T.A.No.715/Mds/2014 is dismissed. A.Y 2007-08 Revenue s appeal I.T.A.No.716/Mds/2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The impugned disallowance of ₹ 1,21,700/- stands deleted. The assessee s appeal I.T.A.No.70/Mds/2014 is allowed. A.Y 2009-10 Revenue s appeal I.T.A.No. 718/Mds/2014 Assessee s appeal I.T.A.No.71/Mds/2014 13. The Revenue s appeal I.T.A.No.718/Mds/2014 challenges the CIT(A) s order allowing additional depreciation in case of assessee s windmill (identical to our findings in assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09 decided hereinabove) and accepting the depreciation claim @ 60% on UPS as against Assessing Officer s action restricting it @ 15% in the course of assessment. The assessee s grievance is also two folded. It challenges disallowance of ₹ 1,49,146/- u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) and the other of ₹ 58,98,472/- qua consignment sales. We proceed to deal with the Revenue s appeal first. 14. It is to be seen that the Revenue s former ground of additional depreciation is covered by our findings on identical issue decided hereinabove in preceding assessment years. The Revenue s ground is accordingly rejected. 15. The Revenue s second ground is regarding rate of depreciation on the assessee s UPS system. The Assessing Officer restricted this claim of depre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
