TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai, in ITA No.0054/2012-13 dated 29.01.2016 for the AY 2008-09. 2. ITA No.1077/Chny/2016 is an appeal filed by the Revenue & ITA No.1060/Chny/2016 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai, in ITA No.0066/2012-13 dated 29.01.2016 for the AY 2009-10. 3. ITA No.1078/Chny/2016 is an appeal filed by the Revenue & ITA No.1061/Chny/2016 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai, in ITA No.0008/2013-14 dated 29.01.2016 for the AY 2010-11. 4. ITA No.1062/Chny/2016 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant appeals. 12. It was a submission that the first issue was in regard to the disallowance u/s.14A. It was a submission that the AO had invoked the provisions of Sec.14A and by applying the Rule 8D disallowed, the expenditure in relation to the exempt income, being the dividend income, received by the assessee. At the time of hearing, it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd., reported in 372 ITR 694, wherein it has been held that the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act cannot exceed the tax exempt income. It was further submitted by the Ld.AR that the AO had also considered the disallowance u/s.14A when computing the book ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lhi Special Bench in the case of M/s.Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., the AO is directed not to include the disallowance u/s.14A when computing the book profits u/s.115J. 16. The next issue involved in these appeals are in respect of the hire charges paid by the assessee company in respect of chartered flight in respect of the travel of the Managing Director of the assessee company. It was submitted by the Ld.DR that the details of the said expenditure were not produced. It was a submission that though some details have been verified by the Ld.CIT(A), the same had not been properly produced before the AO. It was a submission that the Revenue has no objection, if the issue is restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication and verificat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 21. In reply, the Ld.AR vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A). It was a submission that the issue was now squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rane (Madras Ltd.) reported in 293 ITR 459 Madras as also the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd., reported in 339 ITR 400, wherein, it has been held that the expenditure incurred in respect of the extension of the existing unit was liable to be treated as a Revenue expenditure. 22. We have considered the rival submissions. 23. As it is noticed that the issue is covered by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rane (Madras Ltd.)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntly supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 27. We have considered the rival submissions. 28. As it is noticed that the issue under appeal is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd., referred to supra, as also the decision of the General Motors, referred to supra, and as it is noticed that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the above decisions in respect of the carry forward of the unabsorbed depreciation by treating the same as depreciation for the current year, we find no reason to interfere in the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. Consequently, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue stands c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2/Chny/2016 - Assessee's appeal: Ground Nos.1 & 3 are general in nature. Ground Nos.2 to 2.7 are dismissed. In the result, the Assessee's appeal in ITA No.1062/Chny/2016 is dismissed. 36. ITA No.1272/Chny/2016 - Revenue's appeal: Ground Nos.1 & 4 are general in nature. Ground Nos.2 & 3 are partly allowed. In the result, the Revenue's appeal in ITA No.1272/Chny/2016 is partly allowed. 37. ITA No.1063/Chny/2016 - Assessee's appeal: Ground Nos.1 & 4 are general in nature. Ground Nos.2 to 2.7 are partly allowed. Ground No.3 is dismissed. In the result, the Assessee's appeal in ITA No.1063/Chny/2016 is partly allowed. 38. ITA No.947/Chny/2017 - Assessee's appeal: Ground Nos.1 & 4 are general in nature. Ground Nos.2 to 2.7 are partly all....