TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the ossessee's claim of depreciation as per WDV Method in the A.Y.2006-07. 3. The ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs.19,29,184/-, made on account of earlier year expenses. 4. The ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs.6,00,000/- made to the book profit on account of disallowance of interest expenses u/s.14A of the Income tax Act. 5. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,30,000/-made to the book profit on account of interest on investment in Bonds. 6. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs,19r29,184/-made to the book profit on account of prior period expenses. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer." 3. At the outset, Shri S.N. Sooparkar, appeared on behalf of the Assessee and with regard to ground nos. 1 and 2, pointed out that in the impugned order, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has followed the decision dated 03.03.2009 of ITAT, 'A' Bench, Ahmedabad in assessee's own case in IT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Justification 1. 07/07/2005 1,40,430 Purchase of Spare parts This is the amount of purchase of spares for aircompressor, some material for which was received on 14/10/2005, though the bills for the same were received before 31/12/2004. Since the material received was in the year under consideration, the liability to pay also crystallized in the year and therefore the same is deductible. 2. 22/08/2005 17,558 Amount paid to Contractor This is the amount we paid to Mr. U.P Singh which was in respect of some work done by them for which the disputes were settled on 22-08-05 and hence claimed as expenses for Asst. year 2006-07. 4. 21/12/2005 3,83,379 Purchase of Gas from GSPCL. This is the amount payable to Gujarat State Petrochemical Co. Ltd. in respect of fuel used by Compressor and for high value of N.C.V. for the period 1-06-2003 to 15-06- 2003 for which the settlement took place for the year under consideration and hence claimed accordingly 5. 31/03/2006 84,126 Service tax recovered by HDFC Bank by debit to our account. This is the amount of service tax deducted by bank in our account in respect of the past services for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax(Appeals), it was contended by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that while computing the book profit under section 115JB, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres reported in 255 ITR 273, the additions made (a) on account of disallowance u/s.14A - Rs.6,00,000/-, (b) interest on investment in bonds - Rs.1,30,000/- and (c) prior period expenses - Rs.19,29,184/- are beyond the scope of Explanation to section 115JB. Without prejudice to this, it was also contended that interest on investment in bonds amounting to Rs.1,30,000/- stood already included in the book profit as computed in profit and loss a/c. and hence could not have been computed in the book profit. After considering both the sides, in the impugned order, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) took the view that disallowance under section 14A and addition of Rs.1,30,000/- to the book profit cannot be made for the detailed reasons given in para 7.2, which reads as under: "7.2 The matter has been considered. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres (supra) is quite unambiguous. Only such items which are specifically mentioned in the Explanation to s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come, therefore assessee is not in a position to claim deduction under section 80- IA in this year. Further, if situation happens i.e. there is positive income for this year, ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to discuss the issue of allowability of deduction under section 80IA and take into account the decision of CIT vs. Eltek SGP Ltd. before giving any conclusion. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel of the assessee could not point out what is the infirmity in the directions given by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). We, therefore, decline to interfere. Hence, ground no.1 of the assessee's appeal is rejected. 14. The facts relating to controversy involved in ground no.2 are that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer, in line with the earlier year's treatment, disallowed Rs.6 lakhs, being notional interest @12% on investment of Rs.50 lakhs made by the assessee in the quality shares. On appeal, in the impugned order, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), following the Tribunal's decision in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2002-03, directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the disallowance, as per the provisions of R....