9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that judgment in CIT vs. S. K. Tekriwal [2012 (12) TMI 873 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] holds that Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance does not apply in case of short deduction of TDS. DR thereafter seeks to invoke proportionate disallowance of expenses to the extent of short deduction of TDS only. We find no merit in the instant alternative plea as well since there is no such course of action prescribed in the Act. The Revenue therefore fails in first substantive ground. Section 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance - Held that:- The assessee’s advances in question of ₹ 63.08 crores are much less than its interest free funds of ₹ 29.90 crores. Relevant parties have also been found to be the same as in the said earlier assessment year. All ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , copyright etc. The Revenue fails to quote any case law that the impugned depreciation is not allowable once a particular asset stands included in the corresponding block hereinabove. We therefore reverse both the lower authorities’ action allocating assessee’s depreciation claim. The consequential disallowance arising therefrom for the purpose of assessee’s deduction claim u/s. 80IA of the Act is directed to be deleted. Correctness of Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance - Held that:- Hon’ble Delhi high court’s judgment in Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015 (3) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT) that such a disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income amount itself. The Revenue is unable to rebut application of the above judicial prec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of ₹ 1,09,85,008/- qua its exempt income of ₹ 46,643/-, Section 40A(7) disallowance of gratuity amounting to ₹ 12,84,936/- and allocating its expenses resulting in Section 80IA deduction disallowance of ₹ 7,45,28,297/-; respectively. 3. Both parties inform us at the outset that some of the issues emanating in the instant cross appeals are inter connected. We proceed to notice that first such common issue is that of Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance. The Assessing Officer noticed during scrutiny that the assessee had not deducted any TDS on rent / lease rent/godown rent, machinery hire, vehicle hire, consultancy, shuttering work, lamination, site office expenses, steel transport, road work and legal / professional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter seeks to invoke proportionate disallowance of expenses to the extent of short deduction of TDS only. We find no merit in the instant alternative plea as well since there is no such course of action prescribed in the Act. The Revenue therefore fails in first substantive ground. 6. We advert to assessee s case now seeking to delete the abovestated Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance amounting to ₹ 64,02,620/-. There is no dispute that it has not deducted TDS on the abovestated payments. Its case however is that the payees in question have already been assessed qua the impugned expenses payments as income in their hands. It quotes hon ble Delhi High Court s decision in CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Townships Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Delh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said earlier assessment year. All these clinching facts have gone unrebutted in the course of hearing. We therefore affirm the CIT(A) s findings deleting the impugned disallowance. The Revenue fails in its second substantive ground. 8. The Revenue s third substantive ground challenges correctness of the CIT(A) s action treating the assessee as an infrastructure developer and not a works contractor qua its BOT road projects in Madhya Pradesh (supra). The assessee s fourth substantive ground connected to the instant issue pleads that the said allocation of expenses has been wrongly made in its case. We therefore take up both these grounds together for adjudication. 9. We advert to Revenue s grievance first that the assessee s BOT r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to building, air conditioner, computers, office equipments, furniture/fitting and vehicles. We find no merit in learned Departmental Representative s vehement contentions supporting both the lower authorities action allocating assessee s depreciation claim in this regard since the same is applicable qua the relevant block of assets as defined in Section 2(11) r.w. Section 32 of the Act prescribing block wise depreciation qua buildings, machinery, plant or furniture in tangible assets category followed by intangible one specifying knowhow, patent, copyright etc. The Revenue fails to quote any case law that the impugned depreciation is not allowable once a particular asset stands included in the corresponding block hereinabove. We theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
