Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
Dcit, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs Freins Engineering Ltd., Chennai on 20 February, 2018 cites

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. on 5 September, 2014

7.2 We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. By reiterating the submissions as made before the ld. CIT(A), It was the submission of the ld. 7 I.T.A. Nos.2147 & 2188/M/17 Counsel for the assessee that the impugned investments have been made a long time ago and the interest free funds of ₹.684.27 lakhs far outweigh the borrowed funds of ₹.181.38 lakhs for the assessment year 2014-15. Similarly, for the assessment year 2013-14 also, the interest free funds of ₹.671.67 exceed the borrowed funds at ₹.482.37 lakhs. Therefore, it was submitted that there was no question of allocation of interest expenditure under Rule 8D. While considering similar issue, in the case of CIT v. HDFC Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that where assessee's capital, profit reserves, surplus and current account deposits were higher than the investments in tax free securities, it would have to be presumed that investment made by the assessee would be out of the interest free funds available with the assessee and no disallowance is warranted under section 14A of the Act. The ld. DR could not controvert the above findings of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly followed the above judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court and held that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) could be made in this case. Hence, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed for both the assessment years.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 686 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala vs Pangal Vittal Nayak And Co. P. Ltd. on 22 August, 1968

CIT 349 ITR 673 and by referring to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Fresh & Honest 5 I.T.A. Nos.2147 & 2188/M/17 Café Ltd v. DCIT in I.T.A. No. 1373/Mds/2016 dated 10.08.2016, wherein, the Tribunal followed its own decision in assessee's own case for earlier assessment year, in which, the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Rittal India (P) Ltd. 66 taxmann.com 4 has been referred, the Hon'ble Madras High Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee by duly affirming the decision in the case of CIT v. Rittal India (P) Ltd. (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 52 - A N Grover - Full Document

Nissin Brake India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs Dcit, Gurgaon on 22 September, 2017

6.2 In view of the above judicial precedents, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly followed the decision in the case of Brakes India Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the additional depreciation for both the assessment years. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed for both the assessment years.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

C.I.T., Madras vs Brakes India Ltd on 6 April, 1993

6. We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Against the disallowance of additional depreciation on the ground that there was nothing mentioned in 4 I.T.A. Nos.2147 & 2188/M/17 the said provision for carry forward of 50% of eligible claim of 20% of additional depreciation when the assets are put to use for less than 180 days, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that similar issue on an identical facts and circumstances was decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Brakes India Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, the ld CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow the additional depreciation for both the assessment years under consideration. In assessee's own case for earlier assessment years in a common order in I.T.A. Nos.249 & 1166/Mds/2010 & I.T.A. No.1069/Mds/2010 dated 06.01.2012, the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal has observed that each assessment year is separate and independent assessment year and the provisions of section 32 of the Act do not provide for carry forward of the residual additional depreciation, if any and accordingly, the dismissed the ground raised by the assessee with regard to allowance of additional depreciation. Against the order of the Tribunal, the assessee preferred further appeal before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 18 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Rpg Netcom Limited on 25 June, 2014

8.1 We have considered the rival submissions. It is an undisputed fact that the software license acquired by the assessee is part and parcel of computer system. If the asset is held to be software, which is used in the computer system and classified with the ambit of "computer", the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation @ 60% as held by the Tribunal in various cases. If at all to say that the assessee is acquired only license, the entire expenditure incurred for acquiring the license is allowable as revenue expenditure as held by the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Dasfoss Industries (P) Ltd. (2013) 37 taxmann.com 240 [in I.T.A. No. 369 & 370/Mds/2013 vide order dated 28.06.2013], wherein, the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Raychem RPG Ltd. 346 ITR 138 has been followed. The ld. DR could not controvert the above 9 I.T.A. Nos.2147 & 2188/M/17 findings of the Tribunal. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the orders of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 38 - A K Mishra - Full Document

Dcit, Chennai vs Danfoss Industries P Ltd., Chennai on 23 February, 2017

8.1 We have considered the rival submissions. It is an undisputed fact that the software license acquired by the assessee is part and parcel of computer system. If the asset is held to be software, which is used in the computer system and classified with the ambit of "computer", the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation @ 60% as held by the Tribunal in various cases. If at all to say that the assessee is acquired only license, the entire expenditure incurred for acquiring the license is allowable as revenue expenditure as held by the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Dasfoss Industries (P) Ltd. (2013) 37 taxmann.com 240 [in I.T.A. No. 369 & 370/Mds/2013 vide order dated 28.06.2013], wherein, the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Raychem RPG Ltd. 346 ITR 138 has been followed. The ld. DR could not controvert the above 9 I.T.A. Nos.2147 & 2188/M/17 findings of the Tribunal. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the orders of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1