If the financiers have only financed or purchased the vehicle and the borrowers are the registered owners, then the financiers are not entitled to claim any depreciation because they are neither the owners of the vehicle nor have they used the vehicle in their profession or business entitling them for depreciation under section 32(1)
DECIDED BY: HIGH COURT OF KERALA, IN THE CASE OF: ACIT Vs. Hukum Chand Jain, APPEAL NO: ITA Nos. 18 and 20 to 22 of 2006, DECIDED ON August 10, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Though the issue raised in these connected appeals filed by the Revenue stands decided in favour of the assessees by […]
We would think that the moment the assessee pours the chemicals into the effluent, he will cease to be the owner and at that point of time the awarder must be deemed to have taken delivery of the same. In our view the fact that upon it being poured into the effluent, it loses its identity and that it is consumed will not detract from the fact that there is delivery of the same to the awarder. The assessee does not have a case that the effluent belongs to the assessee.
So far as the disallowance of administrative expenditure is concerned, we feel considering the fact that there is no precise formula for proportionate disallowance, no disallowance is called for, for proportionate administrative cost attributable to earning of tax free income until Rule 8D came into force. We, therefore, dispose of the appeals by setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and that of the first appellate authority on this issue and remand all the assessments back to the Assessing Officer for reworking disallowance under Section 14A in the case of each assessee for each assessment year. The proportionate disallowance under Section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D from 2007-2008 onwards.
Though the issue raised in these connected appeals filed by the Revenue stands decided in favour of the assessees by Division Bench judgment of this court in SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX reported in 262 ITR 579, the department while arguing these appeals before a Division Bench of this court canvassed against the correctness of the said judgment and the Division Bench on being prima facie satisfied, referred the matter for decision by Full Bench and hence the matter is before us.
The assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessment orders for AYs 2004-05 to 2008-09. Though the appeals were ripe for hearing and the appellate authority had already posted the appeals for hearing on different dates, the AO without considering the pendency of the appeals issued demand notices
Once the rectification application filed by one of the parties is considered and decided by the Tribunal rightly or wrongly, another rectification application on same issue is not maintainable against the order issued by the Tribunal under section 254(2)
The facts leading to the controversy are the following. The respondent-assessee is a firm which was engaged in business with principal place of business at Kochi and a Branch at Mumbai. The assessee purchased a flat at a cost of Rs. 95,000/ in Mumbai for business purposes in the financial year ending on 31.31974.
Kerala High Court dismisses Fed. Bank’s appeal, ruling against 60% depreciation on EPABX and mobile phones. No merit found in prior period expenditure dispute.
Recently, the Kerala High Court in the case of Vodafone Essar Cellular Limited v. ACIT held that the discount given by the taxpayer at the time of sale of SIM Cards or Recharge coupons to the distributors is commission for the services rendered to the taxpayer. Accordingly, the taxpayer was liable to deduct tax at source on the commission under Section 194H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
