TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 932
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 (eight) assessment years, in view of the Section 32(2) as substituted by the Finance Act,2001? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT(A) was justified in not appreciating that the provision contained in section 32(2) as substituted by the Finance Act,2001 with effect from 1.4.2002, is substantive and is prospectively applicable to A.Ys.2002-03 onwards. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT(A) was justified in placing reliance on the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's order dated 23.08.2012 in SCA No.1773 of 2012 in the case of General Motors(I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, wherein the Supreme Court, while dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue has expressly kept the question of law open. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT(A) was justified in placing reliance on the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's order dated 23.08.2012 in SCA No.1773 of 2012, in the case of General Motors (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, wherein the decision of ITAT, Mumbai, 'E' Special Bench in the case of DCIT Vs Times Guaranty Ltd (ITA Nos.4917 and 4918 (MUM) of 2008 dated 30.06.2010) was not considered although the Spec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been amended by Finance Act,2001 and the amended provisions provides that where, in the assessment of the assessee, full effect cannot be given to any allowance under sub-section (1) in any previous year, owing to there being no profits or gains chargeable for that previous year, or owing to the profits or gains chargeable for that previous year, owing to the profit or gains chargeable being less than the allowance, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section(2) of section 72 and sub-section(3) of section 73, the allowance or the part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation for the following previous year and deemed to be part of that allowance. Therefore, by amendment in section 32(1), unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years became part of the depreciation of the current year and can be allowed to be set off in the future years. The Board has also clarified vide Circular No.14 of 2001 the intent of the amendment that it is for enabling the industry to conserve sufficient funds to replace plant and machinery and accordingly the amendment dispenses with restriction of 8 years for carr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich has been placed on record. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the cited order has followed the ratio of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in General Motors India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [354 ITR 244]. The revenue could not place on record any contrary judgment to controvert the same. The same is further fortified by CBDT circular No.14 of 2001. Respectfully following the binding judicial precedent, we dismiss revenue's appeal and concur with the stand of Ld. CIT(A). Resultantly, the revenue's appeal stands dismissed. Assessee's Appeal ITA No. 1167/Mum/2016 AY 2011-12 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal:- (i) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred in upholding a disallowance of Rs. 5,34,72,365/- made u/s 14A r.w.rule 8(D) of the Income Tax Act both in the normal computation as well as book profits computed u/s 115JB of the Income Tax of the Income Tax Act. In doing so, the CIT(Appeals) further erred in observing that the Appellant has not refuted the findings of the Tax Auditor. The quantification of disallowance in the Tax Audit report was without prejudice to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Loss account and treated the balance Rs. 60 Lacs as deferred revenue expenditure in the books of accounts. However, during course of assessment proceedings, it further claimed the balance Rs. 60 Lacs as revenue expenditure which was disallowed by Ld. AO by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Private Limited [284 ITR 323]. 5.4 Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same without any success before Ld. CIT(A) where, on merits, it was noted that the assessee obtained the loan from GE Capital Services Limited for repayment of unsecured loans which were utilized to make the investments and therefore, the same being, capital in nature, was not allowable to the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5.5 The Ld. Counsel for Assessee [AR], at the outset, drew our attention to the fact that adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A is not called for while arriving at book profits u/s 115JB in view of the decision of Delhi Tribunal (Special Bench) rendered in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [82 Taxmann.com 415]. Proceeding further, Ld. counsel for Assessee drew our attention to the fact that the assessee contested the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urpose of Section 115JB. The ground of assessee's appeal stands allowed to that extent. 7. So far as the quantum disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D is concerned, we find that the issue arose in assessee's own case for AY 2009-10 where the matter was remanded back to Ld. AO for reconsideration of assessee's documentary evidences and ratio of decision of this Tribunal rendered in Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. [supra]. Upon perusal of factual matrix in the present case, we find that the assessee has been saddled with major disallowance of Rs. 505.45 Lacs u/r 8D(2)(i) on account of direct interest expenditure. The Ld. AR contended that the investments made in joint ventures were strategic in nature and had to be excluded while arriving at the disallowance u/s 14A. At the same time, it is uncontroverted fact that the gains from sale of those investments were taxable under the head 'Capital Gains'. As correctly noted by Ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed the refute the findings of Tax Auditor in this regard and could not demonstrate that it did not incur any direct expenditure to make the investments. Therefore, the issue, in our opinion, remains inconclusive and requires reconsideration by ....