TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>High Court allows appeal on disallowance under Section 43B, 14A, and depreciation, emphasizing evidence and legal provisions.</h1> The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant regarding the disallowance under section 43B for excise duty and sales tax, as the High Court held that ... - Issues Involved: The judgment involves issues related to disallowance u/s 43B for excise duty and sales tax, disallowance of depreciation, and disallowance u/s 14A.Disallowance u/s 43B - Excise Duty and Sales Tax:The appellant contested the disallowance made u/s 43B for excise duty and sales tax. The AO added amounts totaling to &8377; 6650482.00 under this section. The CIT[A] upheld the disallowance, stating that the appellant failed to provide evidence of payment. However, the appellant argued that the liability for excise duty had not arisen as the goods were still in the factory premises. Citing a High Court decision, it was held that provisions of sec 43B did not apply in this case, as the excise duty liability crystallizes only when goods are cleared from the factory premises. The appeal on this ground was allowed, reversing the CIT[A]'s findings.Disallowance of Depreciation:Regarding the disallowance of depreciation, the AO added &8377; 3012926.00 as excess depreciation claimed. The CIT[A] upheld this disallowance, stating that the claim of depreciation on intangible assets was contrary to law. However, the appellant argued that the depreciation had been allowed in the initial year and should not be disturbed in subsequent years. Citing a High Court decision, it was held that the depreciation should be allowed as claimed by the appellant. The appeal on this ground was allowed.Disallowance u/s 14A - Interest Claimed:The disallowance u/s 14A of &8377; 394537.00 for interest claimed was contested by the appellant. The CIT[A] applied rule 8D, which the appellant argued was prospective and not applicable in this case. It was directed that the AO should decide this issue without applying rule 8D and after giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the source of investments. The appeal on this ground was allowed for statistical purposes.This judgment highlights the importance of providing evidence for disallowances, the application of relevant legal provisions, and the need for proper assessment of depreciation claims.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
