9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 433 - AT - Income TaxClaim of deduction u/s 80IB(11A) Business of taking godowns on lease and letting them - determination of initial year - AO noted that the other condition u/s 80IB(11A) that the eligible unit must start its functions on or after 01/04/2001 - the period of five years was sought to be counted from the year of incorporation of the assessee, viz. 1958 - Held that - Following the decision in AP. State Warehousing Corporation, Hyderabad Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 1(1), Hyderabad 2014 (5) TMI 730 - ITAT HYDERABAD - There was no merit in the reasons of the lower authorities for making the disallowance - the assessee-corporation owns premises accommodating godowns at different places all over the State - each unit is an undertaking because food-grains are stored and handled and transported thereto and therefrom - there is no restriction in section 80-IB that an existing business unit cannot set up new undertakings to carry on the integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food grains - The godowns where this business is to be carried on need not be owned by the assessee - When the assessee-corporation has set up these godowns in as many as in 73 towns and at different places in those towns, it is entitled for relief u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act in respect of each such new undertaking set up by it. The assessee had collected rentals for storing food grains and had engaged outsiders to transport the food grains - the assessee had been carrying on similar business would not disentitle the assessee from claiming relief u/s 80IB(11A) - deduction under Chap VIA, in respect of new undertakings set up by the assessee by way of expansion of the existing undertakings Relying upon as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd v CIT 1977 (1) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court thus, the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB(11A), in respect of income derived from the new undertakings, warehouses, set up and operated from 1.4.2001 for storage, handling and transportation of food grains the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the AO for verifying the claim of the assessee - Decided in favour of Assessee. Claim of deduction of deferred revenue expenditure Held that - Assessee from the earlier assessment years has been following the same method of accounting in respect of expenditure incurred for LDP covers by claiming the actual expenditure incurred - the CIT(A) has dismissed the ground raised by the assessee merely because the assessee has not referred to it in the written submissions filed before her - fact remains the assessee did raise a specific ground on the issue of disallowance of deduction claimed towards purchase of LDP covers thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for verification Decided in favour of assessee. Depreciation on wooden carts Held that - CIT(A) rightly followed the decision as delivered in assessee s own case in AP State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad 2011 (7) TMI 578 - ITAT, HYDERABAD - The only ground on which the department has sought to challenge the decision of the CIT(A) is, against the order passed by the Tribunal an appeal has been preferred by the Department before the Hon ble High Court - filing of an appeal before the Hon ble High Court against the order of the Tribunal by itself would not make the Tribunal s order either ineffective or inoperative unless it is set aside or reversed by the Hon ble high Court thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of claim of deduction under Section 80IB(11A). 2. Disallowance of claim of deduction of deferred revenue expenditure. 3. Disallowance of claim of depreciation on wooden crates. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Claim of Deduction under Section 80IB(11A): The assessee, a state government undertaking, claimed deductions under Section 80IB(11A) for the assessment years (AY) 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed these claims, arguing that the assessee was only providing storage facilities and not engaged in the integrated business of handling, storage, and transportation of food grains. The AO also noted that the assessee did not start operations on or after April 1, 2001, and failed to maintain separate books of account for the new undertakings. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, referencing a previous decision for AY 2007-08. However, the ITAT found that the issue was covered by its earlier decision in the assessee's favor for AYs 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08. The ITAT directed the AO to verify the claim and allow deductions for new undertakings set up after April 1, 2001, following the legislative intent to encourage building storage capacities. 2. Disallowance of Claim of Deduction of Deferred Revenue Expenditure: The assessee claimed a deduction for actual expenditure incurred on LDP covers, treating it as deferred revenue expenditure in its accounts. The AO allowed only the amount debited to the Profit & Loss Account and not the actual expenditure. The CIT(A) dismissed the ground as the assessee did not make any written submissions. The ITAT remitted the issue back to the AO to verify the actual expenditure incurred and decide accordingly, noting that similar claims had been allowed in previous years. 3. Disallowance of Claim of Depreciation on Wooden Crates: The AO disallowed part of the depreciation claimed on wooden crates, treating them as plant and machinery eligible for 15% depreciation instead of 100%. The CIT(A) allowed the full depreciation following a previous ITAT order for AY 2003-04 in the assessee's favor. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that an appeal pending before the High Court did not invalidate the ITAT's previous order. Judgment Summary: - Appeals for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 regarding Section 80IB(11A) were allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to verify the claims. - The appeal regarding deferred revenue expenditure was also allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to verify the actual expenditure. - The appeal regarding depreciation on wooden crates was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. Conclusion: The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee on the issues of Section 80IB(11A) deductions and deferred revenue expenditure, directing further verification by the AO. The ITAT dismissed the department's appeal on the depreciation issue, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision based on precedent.
|
