Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

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
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2014 (4) TMI 429

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ector of the assessee's company explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. In the affidavit, it is averred that the first appellate order was served on the erstwhile consultant and there was a change in the assessee company's tax consultant. The assessee, being a dormant company had no turnover in the last 4 years. Further, the company does not have any staff or full time professionals to look into the tax matter. Considering the fact that the assessee has been prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time, we condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. In Ground No 1, the assessee has agitated the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in partly confirming the disallowance of Rs 4,15,758/- u/s 14....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ances as are prevailing presently and the disallowance has to be worked out by the AO on some 'reasonable basis' and not rule 8D in so far as the assessment years prior to 2008-09 are concerned. Presently, we are dealing with the A.Y. 2007-08. In such year, obviously rule 8D cannot be applied, but the disallowance is required to be worked out on some reasonable basis. As the authorities below have computed the disallowable amount as per rule 8D, such computation cannot be upheld. Under such circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the AO for deciding the quantum of disallowance, as per the afore-noted judgment, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Resulta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s pertinent to mention that the Tribunal in the case of M/s Suresh Industries Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT in ITA No. 5374/Mum/2011, which has been relied on by the Ld.AR in support of the claim of the assessee, has held that unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against any income and the brought forward of unabsorbed depreciation is treated as current year's depreciation because of the legal fiction, therefore the treatment given to the current year's depreciation is equally applicable to brought forward depreciation after application of Finance Act, 2001. In the said decision, the Tribunal has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Virmani Indus. Pvt Ltd & Ors 216 ITR 607 by observing that the ratio laid ....