TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D should be sustained in respect of investments that did not yield exempt dividend income; (ii) Whether additional depreciation of Rs. 45,21,271 arising from re adjustment of the written down value (WDV) of civil works of windmill is allowable by recomputing WDV; (iii) Whether the provision for mine closure expenses of Rs. 62,91,01,252 is allowable as deduction under section 37(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): Whether the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D should be sustained in respect of investments that did not yield exempt dividend income.
Analysis: The admitted facts show dividend arose only on a specified portion of investments; the assessee had suo moto disallowed an amount representing average value of investments that actually yielded dividend and that amount exceeded the maximum permissible computation under Rule 8D(2)(iii). Coordinate and High Court authorities restrict Rule 8D apportionment to investments that yielded exempt income; the assessing officer had applied Rule 8D to the larger investment base including non yielding investments.
Conclusion: Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D is not sustainable to the extent computed on investments that did not yield exempt income; the net addition of Rs. 2,59,24,567 is deleted. (Outcome in favour of assessee)
Issue (ii): Whether additional depreciation of Rs. 45,21,271 arising from re adjustment of WDV of civil works of windmill is allowable.
Analysis: Prior years' restriction of depreciation resulted in the need for correct computation of WDV for the block; recomputation under the statutory depreciation provisions affects subsequent years' WDV and consequential depreciation. The appellate authority directed recomputation in accordance with Section 32.
Conclusion: The additional depreciation of Rs. 45,21,271 is allowable on recomputation of WDV in accordance with Section 32. (Outcome in favour of assessee)
Issue (iii): Whether the provision for mine closure expenses of Rs. 62,91,01,252 is allowable as deduction under section 37(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The provision was created following mandatory guidelines issued for mine closure, represents an accrual based provision made in the ordinary course of business, and coordinate bench decisions in the assessee's own earlier years apply; no contrary binding higher court decision was shown by Revenue.
Conclusion: The provision for mine closure expenses of Rs. 62,91,01,252 is allowable as a deduction under section 37(1). (Outcome in favour of assessee)
Final Conclusion: The appeal by Revenue is dismissed; the appellate findings deleting the section 14A disallowance, allowing recomputed depreciation, and allowing the mine closure expense deduction are upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D is to be computed only in respect of investments that yielded exempt income; accrual based provisions mandated by industry guidelines for mine closure can qualify as allowable business expenditure under section 37(1); WDV must be recomputed and depreciation adjusted in accordance with Section 32 when prior year restrictions affected the block.
TaxTMI 
