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 partially allows appeal on Income Tax Act disallowance & upholds interest capitalization for new paint shop.</h1> <h3>M/s Hero Cycles Ltd., Versus The A.C.I.T., Circle-V, Ludhiana</h3> M/s Hero Cycles Ltd., Versus The A.C.I.T., Circle-V, Ludhiana - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act2. Capitalization of interest amount for a new paint shopIssue 1: Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act:The appeal was against the disallowance of Rs. 4,17,28,341 made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer held that the provisions of section 14A were applicable to the assessee's case, leading to the disallowance under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The assessee argued that all expenditure related to investments had been self-disallowed, and the Assessing Officer erred in considering certain aspects like gross interest and interest received. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the disallowance, stating that section 14A was applicable. The Tribunal noted the increase in investments during the year and the adequacy of the assessee's own funds to cover the investments, relying on relevant case law. Consequently, the Tribunal held that no disallowance under section 14A could be made, thereby deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.Issue 2: Capitalization of interest amount for a new paint shop:The Assessing Officer capitalized interest of Rs. 20,24,929 related to the investment in a new paint shop, considering it as per section 36(1)(iii) and Explanation-8 to section 43(1) of the Act. The assessee contended that no interest-bearing funds were used for the paint shop and that it was a replacement, not an extension of business. However, the CIT (Appeals) rejected these arguments. The Tribunal observed that the paint shop was a new asset purchased during the year, imported from Germany and commissioned in January, 2008. The disallowance was based on the use of interest-bearing funds from the C/C account, allowed by the bank for business purposes. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's contentions and upheld the disallowance, noting that depreciation had already been provided. Consequently, the ground of appeal on this issue was dismissed.In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the disallowance under section 14A while upholding the capitalization of interest amount for the new paint shop.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
