9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 702 - AT - Income TaxInterest income as income from other sources - disallowance of various expenses and depreciation - commencement of business held that - Activity of the company during the year was only of a pre-operative nature and commencement of business could be said to have started only when it started exploitation of the project. The object of the company was to set up growth centres and thereafter to exploit them. It was the second limb of activity which provided for regular business activity. Thereafter, building repairs, rewiring, installation of lift, etc., were carried on by the assessee company for the purpose of converting the residential accommodation to business and storage accommodation - order of the CIT(A)is confirmed and dismiss the appeals of the assessee - issue involved in these two appeals is squarely covered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee s own case for A.Ys 1998-99 to 2001-02 and no reason to take a contrary view in the present two years and hence, by respectfully following the precedent, issue is decided against the assessee in the present two years also - In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Assessing interest income as income from other sources. 2. Disallowance of various expenses and depreciation claimed by the assessee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Assessing Interest Income as Income from Other Sources: The primary issue in both assessment years (2002-03 and 2003-04) was whether the interest income should be assessed as income from other sources. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee company had not commenced its business operations and therefore, the interest earned was taxable under the head 'Other sources' following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (227 ITR 172). The AO noted that the company was still in the process of setting up growth centres and had not started exploiting its capital assets. This view was upheld by the CIT(A) and subsequently by the Tribunal, which relied on its earlier orders for assessment years 1998-99 to 2001-02, where it was held that the business activity would commence only when the assessee starts exploitation of its capital assets. The Tribunal found no new facts or evidence to deviate from its earlier decision, despite the assessee's submission of a letter from Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) stating that infrastructure was completed in 1997-98. The Tribunal concluded that the letter did not change the fact that the growth centres were not completely set up by 31-03-2002, and thus, the interest income was rightly assessed as income from other sources. 2. Disallowance of Various Expenses and Depreciation:The second issue involved the disallowance of various expenses and depreciation claimed by the assessee. The assessee argued that it had commenced commercial activities from July 1993 and was eligible for deduction of all revenue expenses. However, the AO held that the activities were of a pre-operative nature, and the business had not actually commenced. The AO disallowed the expenses and depreciation on the grounds that the company was still in the process of setting up its business and acquiring capital assets. The CIT(A) upheld this view, noting that the business activity would start only when the company began exploiting its capital assets. The Tribunal also upheld this view, stating that the facts of the case were similar to those in the earlier years, where it was held that the expenses and depreciation were not deductible as the business had not commenced. The Tribunal found no reason to take a different view in the present years and dismissed the appeals of the assessee. Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the assessee for both assessment years (2002-03 and 2003-04), upholding the AO's decision to assess the interest income as income from other sources and to disallow the various expenses and depreciation claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decisions in the assessee's own case for assessment years 1998-99 to 2001-02, finding no new facts or evidence to warrant a different conclusion.
|
