9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, rejected. Disallowance of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) - HELD THAT:- As submitted that as on 31.03.2002, the company had no installed capacity in respect of manufacturing of parts and therefore, the manufacturing in the current year may be considered as 100% increase in installed capacity in respect of manufacturing of parts. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has concurred with the above findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) while upholding the deletion. Even before this court, on behalf of the revenue, nothing has been pointed out to controvert the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal being based upon concurrent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal, thus being based upon concurrent findings of fact, does not give rise to any question of law. Resultantly the said ground of appeal is also rejected. MAT - Adjustment for the purpose of computation of the book profit under section 115JB - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has merely applied the decision of the jurisdictional High Court to the facts of the case. Under the circumstances, the said ground of appeal does not give rise to any question of law and is, accordingly, rejected. ADMIT. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration: (1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the deletion of disallowance under section 14A of the Act of ₹ 13,44,076/while computin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 1,29,034/= ? {C} Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the decision of the CIT (A) to delete the disallowance of claim of additional depreciation of ₹ 2,17,595/= ? {D} Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the decision of the CIT (A) to delete the disallowance of royalty of ₹ 41,06,250/= ? {E} Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the decision of the CIT (A) to delete the addition of ₹ 1,04,889/= on ALP on sale of materials to AE ? {F} Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the decision of the CIT (A) to delete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, nor is it the case of the appellant that the Tribunal has taken into consideration any irrelevant material or that any relevant material has been ignored. Under the circumstances, in the absence of any perversity in the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, the same does not give raise to any question of law. The said ground of appeal is, therefore, rejected. 3. As regards proposed Question (C), which relates to disallowance of additional depreciation of ₹ 2,17,595/under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, a perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) shows that, he, after appreciating the evidence on record has recorded a finding of fact to the effect that the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so rejected. 4. Insofar as proposed Question {D} is concerned, which pertains to disallowance of royalty of ₹ 41,06,250/, as can be seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal has concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee had not acquired any ownership rights for usage of the trade mark and had got the right of user only. Since assessment year 198990, the user charges claimed as royalty have been allowed in the assessments and the rate of user charges was 1% of the sales during the year under consideration and the tax has been deducted at source in respect of the royalty payments. The Tribunal observed that since it was a recurring expenditure payable on the basis of sales an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to any question of law. Resultantly the said ground of appeal is also rejected. 6. Proposed Question (F) relates to reduction of ₹ 1,11,223/being prior period adjustment for the purpose of computation of the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. As can be seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal has merely applied the decision of the jurisdictional High Court to the facts of the case. Under the circumstances, the said ground of appeal does not give rise to any question of law and is, accordingly, rejected. 7. Insofar as proposed Questions (G), (H) (I) are concerned, the court is of the view that the matter requires consideration. Hence, ADMIT. The following substantial questions of law arise for consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
