Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Revenue appeal dismissed: no Section 14A disallowance without exempt income, rental deductions allowed, administrative expenses under AS-7 upheld, full depreciation on business assets confirmed

        DCIT, Circle-16 (1), New Delhi. Versus M/s. Mahatta Towers Pvt. Ltd.

        DCIT, Circle-16 (1), New Delhi. Versus M/s. Mahatta Towers Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:

        1. Deletion of disallowance of expenditure and depreciation related to construction activity.
        2. Application of Rule 8D and disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
        3. Deletion of disallowance of assured rental/interest paid by the assessee.
        4. Deletion of disallowance of administrative and staff expenses.
        5. Deletion of disallowance of depreciation.

        Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Deletion of Disallowance of Expenditure and Depreciation:

        The Revenue challenged the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of expenditure and depreciation related to construction activity, arguing that the assessee had not offered income during the year as it followed the Complete Contract Method of accounting. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee's business model involved treating the construction project as stock-in-trade, and the interest paid on capital borrowed for the project was deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal referenced the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Lokhandwala Construction Inds. Ltd., which supported the allowance of such deductions.

        2. Application of Rule 8D and Disallowance under Section 14A:

        The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) was incorrect in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A, arguing that the application of Rule 8D was mandatory. The Tribunal, however, affirmed the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, citing judicial precedents like CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. and CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., which held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted in the absence of tax-free income. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to demonstrate that the assessee had incurred any expenditure for earning exempt income, thus justifying the deletion of the disallowance.

        3. Deletion of Disallowance of Assured Rental/Interest:

        The Revenue argued that assured rentals paid by the assessee should not be equated with interest and thus were not deductible. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, noting that the assured rental was indeed interest under Section 2(28A) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal referenced the decision in DCIT vs. M/s. Vipul Infracon Pvt. Ltd., which supported the treatment of assured returns as interest deductible under business expenditure.

        4. Deletion of Disallowance of Administrative and Staff Expenses:

        The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of administrative and staff expenses, which were claimed without corresponding revenue. The Tribunal affirmed the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the ITAT Mumbai's decision in Lodha Palazzo and others, which allowed such expenses as revenue expenditure when they are not directly related to a construction project. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had consistently followed the method prescribed under AS-7, which justified the allowance of these expenses.

        5. Deletion of Disallowance of Depreciation:

        The Revenue challenged the deletion of the disallowance of depreciation. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that depreciation is a statutory allowance and should be granted if the assets are used for business purposes. The Tribunal referenced the case of Mukesh K. Shah vs. ITO, which supported the view that personal use does not affect the statutory allowance of depreciation. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the assessee had calculated depreciation correctly as per Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, and the Revenue did not provide any contrary evidence.

        Conclusion:

        The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s order in its entirety. The Tribunal's decision was based on the consistent application of judicial precedents and statutory provisions, supporting the assessee's claims for deductions and disallowances. The Tribunal found no material evidence from the Revenue to warrant a deviation from the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found