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>High Court allows appeal, sets aside Tribunal's order re: machinery installation evidence under Section 154.</h1> <h3>Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Versus M/s. S.R. Industries Ltd.</h3> Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Versus M/s. S.R. Industries Ltd. - TMI Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment include disallowance of interest paid on capital work in progress under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the disallowance of excess depreciation claimed on machinery being put to use in March 2007.Disallowed Interest on Capital Work in Progress:The respondent-assessee, a manufacturer and exporter of terry towel, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 claiming a loss of Rs. 86,40,279. Disallowance of interest paid on capital work in progress was made under Section 36(1)(iii) due to the assessee showing an amount of Rs. 6,43,261 as capital work in progress in the balance sheet. Reassessment proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on the ground of escapement of income amounting to Rs. 73,44,534. The assessee contended that all interest on loans taken for business expansion had been capitalized, and no interest was claimed as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed a net interest amount of Rs. 48,62,035. A notice under Section 154 was issued, which was challenged by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 154 were bad in law and quashed the order, setting aside the CIT(A)'s decision.Excess Depreciation Claim:The Assessing Officer disallowed excess depreciation claimed by the assessee on machinery put to use in March 2007. The assessee had added assets worth Rs. 13,33,68,281 during the year, with depreciation reworked on plant, machinery, and electrical installation. The assessee was allowed excess depreciation of Rs. 1,94,75,052, which was found to be in excess. The Tribunal held that the issue was debatable and required further investigation, which was not permissible under Section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the orders passed by the authorities under Section 154. The appellant argued that the evidence provided by the assessee regarding the installation of machinery justified the initiation of proceedings under Section 154. However, the respondent contended that the issue of claim of depreciation was debatable and required further investigation, not permissible under Section 154.Judgment:The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order. It was observed that the evidence provided by the assessee regarding the installation of machinery justified the initiation of proceedings under Section 154. The evidence showed that the machinery had been put to use in February 2007 for less than 180 days, making the depreciation allowable at 50%. The Court held that no further investigation was required as the evidence before the Assessing Officer established the date of putting the machinery to use. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 154 were correctly initiated, and the appeal was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
