2016 (10) TMI 411

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....13,determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 160.84 crores. 2. Effective ground of appeal is about restricting the disallowance to Rs. 4,30,550/- u/s.14A of the Act.During the course of assessment proceedings,the AO found that the assessee had claimed exempt income of Rs. 1.68 lakhs u/s. 10(34) of the Act being dividend on shares.He , vide questionnaire dated 29.12.2012,sought details of inadmissible expenses within the meaning of section 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the I.T.Rules, 1962.The assessee in its reply stated that relevant investment yielding exempt income has been made out of own surplus funds and not from the interest bearing funds and the investments were made when the dividend income was taxable, that if all the disallowanc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 4.30, lakhs following the order of his predecessor for the AY 2009-10. 2.3. During the course of hearing before us,the Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of AO the Authorised Representative (AR) referred to the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (ITA No330 of 2012, dt.23.7.14) of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd (ITA 117/2015 ,25/2/15) of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.He stated that the assessee had sufficient own fund to make the investment and stated that investment was constant for last three years . 2.4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that interest free funds available to assessee were more than the investment made by assessee during the year, that borr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d machinery. It was explained to the AO that the assessee was granted benefit u/s. 80HH and Sec; 80-I of the Act therefore the issue relating to the activities of the assessee are settled and decided in favour of the assessee, However the AO was of the opinion that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in two decisions namely CIT Vs N.C. Buddharaj '& Co 204 ITR 412 and Builder Association of India Vs Union of India 209 ITR 877 has held that construction of building, bridges or quarters etc. cannot be construed to mean manufacture or production of any article or thing.The AO following the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court disallowed the claim of additional depreciation of Rs. 1,53,19,184/-. 13. The assessee agitated this matter be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ny article or thing therefore it is not eligible for additional depreciation. In alternative, the Ld. DR submitted that since the Ld. CIT(A) himself has pointed 01 that only 15% of the activity of the assessee can be construed as manufacturing activity, therefore, the claim of depreciation should be restricted to only 15%. 16. Rebutting the arguments of the Ld. DR, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that it is well settled that rule of consistency should be followed. For this proposition, the Ld. Counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoamy Satsang Vs CIT 193 ITR 321. It is the say of the Counsel that once this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in assessee's own case....