9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 14.12.2017. 2. The first issue in this appeal of revenue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) restricting the disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter 'the Rules') to the extent of exempt income. For this, revenue has raised following ground: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee which was computed as per Rule 8D of I.T Rules 1962 on the basis of CBDT Circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 which clearly states that it is not necessary to earn exempt income in a particular year in which the disallowance is made? 2. Whether on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the normal provisions themselves, there is no question of their applicability u/s 115JB for MAT purposes. The same addition is also considered as deemed to have been deleted without going into the merits of the legality of whether section 14A is applicable to MAT provisions or not. These grounds are allowed. 5. We noted that the CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income at Rs. 3,000/- only by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) and hence we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A). Hence, the order of CIT(A) is confirmed and this issue of revenue is dismissed. 6. The next issue in this appeal of revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has already disallowed an amount of Rs. 22,000/- So, there is no scope for any further disallowance. In view of this established judicial position, the disallowance made of Rs. 3.9,01,000/- made u/s 14A in this case is hereby deleted. Since the addition does not survive in the normal provisions themselves, there is no question of their applicability u/s 115JB for MAT purposes. The same addition is also considered as deemed to have been deleted without going into the merits of the legality of whether section 14A is applicable to MAT provisions or not. These grounds are allowed. 8. We noted that this issue is even covered by the special bench of this Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 502/Del/2012 & CO No. 68/Del/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same asset was under dispute and additional depreciation was allowed. The Tribunal allowed the depreciation by observing in para-9 as under: "9. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the A.O. In order to appreciate the issue before us the relevant provision of Sec. 32 to the extent relevant for the year under consideration are culled out as under: 'Section 32 (1) In respect of depreciation of- (i) Buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets. (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dly, the purpose of affording benefit to an assessee by way of additional depreciation under Sec.32(1)(iia) was backed with an intent to encourage industrialization i.e. either by setting up a new industrial unit or by expanding a new industrial unit by purchasing and installing new machinery or plant and putting the same to use for the purpose of business. We find that as per second proviso to Sec. 32(1) the entitlement of an assessee towards claim of depreciation in a case where a new machinery or plant acquired during the previous year is put to use for a period of less than 180 days in that previous year shall be restricted to 50% for the percentage prescribed for the said asset under clause (iia) of Sec. 32(1) of the I.T. Act. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised the following ground: 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)has erred in deleting the addition made under section 37 on account of Sales and services without appreciating that the assessee has incurred the said expenditure as its Corporate Social Responsibility and the Income Tax Act, 1961 clearly specifies under explanation (2) to sub-section (1) of Sec. 37 that any expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to Corporate Social Responsibility referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purposes of the business or profession? 14. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
