9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called for. Accordingly, addition of ₹ 2,69,620/- is deleted and disallowance is sustained only for a sum of ₹ 2,00,484/-. This ground is partly allowed. Deduction on account of provisions of warranty - Held that:- The deduction claimed by the assessee on account of the provisions for warranty is concerned, that is fully covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls (P) Ltd (2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Additional depreciation on Fan & Air Conditioners - claim disallowed by the Assessing Officer for the reason that they are not related to manufacturing activities - Held that:- The finding of the fact by the CIT (A) is tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT (A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of disallowing a sum of ₹ 4,70,104/- allegedly as expenses (including interest) incurred towards earning exempt income u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that no interest expense was actually incu8rred by the appellant for the purpose of earning exempt income. In any case, the expenses attributed by the Assessing Officer without having any regard to the accounts are unreasonable an excessive. 3. The appellant prays that the disallowance of ₹ 4,70,104/- should be deleted or substantially reduced. Ground No.III: Levy of Interest. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er hearing both the parties and considering the issue that in another matter in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, 292 ITR 470 (Cal), where provisions of section 43B(f) were held to be arbitrary and in Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 8/9/2008 the judgment of Hon ble Culcutta High Court has been stayed and also the fact that Hon'ble Bombay High Court has admitted the issue in consideration in the appeal filed by the department in the case of M/s. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd.(supra), the matter was restored back to the file of AO with the following observations: 7. We observe that Mumbai Tribunal by its order dated 30.3.2009 in the case Universal Medicare Pvt Ltd. (supra) allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.1 Referring to the above observation it was pleaded by Ld. A.R that the matter may be restored back to the file of AO with similar directions. 4. Ld. D.R did not have any objection to such request of Ld. A.R. 5. In this view of the situation, after hearing both the parties, respectfully following subsequent decision of the Tribunal on this issue in the case of Essar Exploration production India Ltd (supra), we restore the issue to the file of Assessing Officer with similar directions. The relevant observations have already been reproduced. We direct accordingly. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid. 3. In this view of the situation, after hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax free income is much less than the share capital and reserve and surplus. Therefore, the contention of the assessee is required to be accepted and it is held that no disallowance on account of interest was called for. Accordingly, addition of ₹ 2,69,620/- is deleted and disallowance is sustained only for a sum of ₹ 2,00,484/-. This ground is partly allowed. 6. Apropos ground no.3, it was submitted that the same is consequential. We direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the interest as per the provisions of law after giving effect to this order. ITA No.4160/M/2012 (AY 2008-2009) (By Revenue) 7. This appeal filed by the Revenue on 13.6.2012. In this appeal Revenue raised the following grounds which read as und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, does not raise any substantial question of law in relation to this deduction. 9. Later on the aforementioned decision was followed by the Hon ble High Court in respect of the AY 2006-2007 vide order dated 25.7.2014 in Income Tax Appeal No.535 of 2012. Copy of this order is placed at page 139 and 140 of the paper book. 10. In this view of the situation as the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforementioned orders of the Hon ble Bombay High Court, we dismissed ground no.1 of the Revenue s appeal. 11. Apropos ground no.2, Assessing Officer has discussed this issue in para 9 of the assessment order. Additional depreciation @ 20% has been disallowed on certain items and disallowance is a sum of ₹ 48,666/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
