2017 (10) TMI 1324 - HC - Income Tax

Sums received upon encashment of bank guarantees - ITAT held that such additions were unjustified because the income could not be approved as the dispute is pending litigation and final adjudication before the Court - Held that - This Court is of the opinion that the reasoning of the ITAT is in accord with sound principles and previous judgments. No question of law arises on this score. Depreciation of claim in respect of assets not registered in the name of the assessee - ITAT factually found that the assessee had paid all amounts to the transferor and had obtained possession. The assessee was also using the premises for its business purposes. The determination of this question is, therefore, essentially factual. No question of law arises. Exemption under Section 80IA - exemption claimed for the Inland Container Depot (ICD), Container Freight Station (CFS) and rolling stock - Held that - Here again the Revenue s contentions were rejected for previous years in Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. ACIT 2012 (5) TMI 260 - DELHI HIGH COURT . So far as the rolling stock is concerned, ITAT has relied upon its previous ruling. Amortized depreciation - Held that - ITAT correctly, in our opinion, applied Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1978. No question of law, therefore, arises. Depreciation of land - ITAT was of the opinion that the lower authority had not considered the applicability of Section 32(1)(ii) and, therefore, remitted the matter for fresh consideration. Accordingly, no ground to interfere with the remit order arises.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition on account of sums received upon encashment of bank guarantees.
2. Depreciation claim for assets not registered in the name of the assessee.
3. Exemption under Section 80IA for Inland Container Depot, Container Freight Station, and rolling stock.
4. Amortized depreciation.
5. Additional question on depreciation of land.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the addition on account of sums received upon encashment of bank guarantees. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that such additions were unjustified due to pending litigation and final adjudication before the Court. The High Court concurred with the ITAT's reasoning, stating that no question of law arises in this regard.

2. The second issue concerns the depreciation claim for assets not registered in the name of the assessee. The ITAT found that the assessee had paid all amounts to the transferor, obtained possession, and used the premises for business purposes. As this determination is factual, the High Court ruled that no question of law arises in this context.

3. Moving on to the third issue, which is about the exemption under Section 80IA for Inland Container Depot, Container Freight Station, and rolling stock. The Revenue's contentions were rejected based on previous rulings. The High Court noted that the ITAT had relied on its prior judgments, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's contentions.

4. The fourth issue pertains to amortized depreciation. The ITAT's application of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1978, was deemed correct by the High Court. Consequently, the court found no question of law to be raised concerning amortized depreciation.

5. Lastly, the additional question raised in ITA 918/2017 concerns the depreciation of land. The ITAT observed that the lower authority had not considered the applicability of Section 32(1)(ii) and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the remit order and ultimately dismissed the appeals, concluding that there was no merit in the arguments presented.