9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee were unsecured loans. It has avoided a large number of formalities, such as, giving securities, pledging something etc. In such situation a little payment of higher rate of interest could not be termed as excessive. Therefore, we are of the view that the ld.CIT(A)has rightly deleted the disallowance. Addition on purchase of car - as per AO since car was purchased in the name of Manager, it was not owned by the assessee, therefore, expenditure incurred for acquiring car as well as depreciation is not admissible to the assessee - Held that:- Car was used practically for the business purpose of the assessee. It has provided finance for purchasing the car. The only name of the Manager is being reflected in the registration certificate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee is entitled for additional depreciation on these items. - Revenue appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per annum, and accordingly made an addition of ₹ 35,95,578/- in Asstt.Year 2010-11 and ₹ 67,30,923/- in the Asstt.Year 2011-12. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) deleted both the disallowance. The ld.CIT(A) has recorded a finding that interest payment on unsecured loans in between 15% to 18% is not excessive. It is commensurate with the fair market value of availing loans at this rate. 6. Before us the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that in the Asstt.Year 2008-09 and 2009-10 similar disallowance was made. Dispute travelled up to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has deleted the disallowance. He placed on record copy of the Tribunal's order in ITA No.239 and 1836/Ahd/2012. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the orders of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preciation. The ld.AO was of the view that since car was purchased in the name of Manager, it was not owned by the assessee, therefore, expenditure incurred for acquiring car as well as depreciation is not admissible to the assessee. On the appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has observed that car was used practically for the business purpose of the assessee. It has provided finance for purchasing the car. The only name of the Manager is being reflected in the registration certificate. Otherwise, for all other practical purposes car was used by the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) has looked into supporting evidence, and thereafter allowed incidental expenses as well as depreciation. After going through order of the ld.CIT(A), we do not find any reasons to interf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Asstt.Year 2011-12. 13. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has installed lab equipments and certain electrical items. It claimed additional depreciation at the rate of 20% on these items, which were disallowed by the AO. The AO was of the opinion that lab equipments and electrical installation would not qualify for plant & machinery for the purpose of manufacture. In other words, according to the AO, these items would not be considered as part of plant & machinery used for manufacturing purpose. She disallowed additional depreciation and made addition of ₹ 1,10,025/-. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) deleted disallowance. 14. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. With regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
