TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal's Decision: Investment Allowance Denied, Interest Disallowance Upheld</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow Versus Jai Prakash Associates (P.) Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow Versus Jai Prakash Associates (P.) Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Entitlement to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Disallowance of interest paid on deposits in excess of 15% per annum.3. Computation of value of free residential accommodation for disallowance under sections 40(c) and 40A(5).4. Inclusion of expenditure on running and maintenance of jeeps for disallowance under section 37(3).5. Treatment of cost of replacement of old carpets as revenue expenditure.6. Rejection of additional deduction claim of &8377; 4,87,892.Analysis:1. The dispute in this case pertains to the assessment year 1985-86, where the assessee-company, engaged in construction activities, claimed investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, but it was accepted on appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. However, citing a Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. N.C. Buddha Raja & Co., it was established that construction of roads, tunnels, and bridges does not qualify for investment allowance under section 32A. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled against the assessee on this issue.2. The second question raised was regarding the disallowance of interest paid on deposits exceeding 15% per annum. The Tribunal noted previous decisions that favored the assessee on similar matters. Following this precedent, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on this issue, contrary to the department's stance.3. Moving on to the questions raised by the assessee, the Tribunal noted that no representation was made on behalf of the assessee to argue these points. As a result, the questions regarding the computation of the value of free residential accommodation, inclusion of jeep maintenance expenditure for disallowance, treatment of carpet replacement cost, and rejection of an additional deduction claim were left unanswered, and the reference was decided accordingly.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed various complex tax issues, including investment allowance eligibility, interest disallowance, and computation of expenses, applying legal precedents and interpretations of the Income-tax Act to reach decisions on each issue raised by the parties involved in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
