9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1499 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation in respect of residential properties - HELD THAT - As perused the order of the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2004-05 2019 (4) TMI 1809 - ITAT MUMBAI wherein the Tribunal decided this issue in favour of the assessee - as observed that the Tribunal while disposing off appeal for the A.Y. 2005-06 2019 (4) TMI 1809 - ITAT MUMBAI to A.Y. 2007-08 directed the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation as claimed by the assessee on residential premises however it was also directed to verify the fact as to whether deduction U/s.24(a) was claimed by the assessee or not and if it is claimed the same is to be disallowed. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in 2019 (11) TMI 1368 - ITAT MUMBAI for the A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10 by order 2019 (11) TMI 1368 - ITAT MUMBAI . As the facts being identical respectfully following the said decision we direct the Assessing Officer to carry out similar exercise as directed Disallowance of amortization of premium paid on leasehold land has been decided in favour of the Revenue in own case in 2019 (11) TMI 1368 - ITAT MUMBAI for the A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10 . Disallowance of depreciation on toll road - Addition made towards notional interest in respect of toll road from Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation - HELD THAT - We restore this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue following the directions of the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2005-06 to 2007-08. 2019 (4) TMI 1809 - ITAT MUMBAI This ground is allowed for statistical purpose. Disallowance of interest on loan given to IL FS employee welfare trust - HELD THAT - We observe that this issue has been decided by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2009-10 2019 (11) TMI 1368 - ITAT MUMBAI held that the assessee has not proved that the loan is given for the purpose of business of the assessee. Even before us the assessee could not substantiate that the loan has been given for the purpose of business of the assessee. In the circumstances we are not inclined the disturb the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) hence the action of the Ld.CIT(A) is sustained. Ground raised by the assessee is rejected. Double addition to income - HELD THAT - We are inclined to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the submissions of the assessee with reference to Books of Accounts Profit and Loss Account and balance sheet and decide the issue in accordance with law. We make it clear that if it is proved that assessee has offered excess income as claimed by the assessee the same shall not be brought to tax as it would amount double addition though it is an inadvertent mistake of the assessee. Disallowance of deduction u/s.36(l)(viii) - HELD THAT - The appellant had advanced loans for infrastructural facilities to group entities which are developing the infrastructural facilities in separate company. This separate company formed as group entity develops infrastructural facility and income from this accrues to this group entities. The appellant s extended loan for development of infrastructural facilities on long term basis which is the 2nd condition which appellant has to fulfill to claim sec.36(l)(viii). As appellant is fulfilling the condition of specified entity and extending the loan for infrastructural facilities though they are group companies which are themselves developing infrastructural facilities the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s.36(l)(viii) Mis-match in AIR - assessee has not explained the transactions and accordingly made addition u/s.69/69B/69C - HELD THAT - No infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). The Assessing Officer is directed to issue notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to the parties mentioned in AIR and if the parties confirm that they have made payments to the assessee the same shall be treated as income of the assessee. However the Assessing Officer shall provide complete details to the assessee to rebut the confirmations which the Assessing Officer receives from the parties. Adequate opportunity shall be given to the assessee to make its submissions; in case the Assessing Officer wants to treat any amount as income of the assessee due to the mis-match in AIR. Allowing depreciation on computer software @60%.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on residential properties. 2. Disallowance of amortization of premium paid on leasehold land. 3. Disallowance of depreciation on toll road. 4. Addition of notional interest income in respect of toll road from MPSIDC. 5. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D in respect of interest. 6. Disallowance of interest on loan given to IL&FS Employee Welfare Trust. 7. Double addition of income. 8. Rejection of claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii). 9. Levy of interest under Section 234B. 10. Deletion of addition to "Income from House Property". 11. Deletion of disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 12. Treatment of capital expenditure on computer software development expenses as revenue expenditure. 13. Deletion of accrued income from Toll Road. 14. Deletion of club expenses. 15. Deletion of disallowance claimed under Section 36(1)(viii). 16. Verification of income accruing as per AIR-ITS details. 17. Allowance of depreciation on computer software and peripherals at 60%. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Residential Properties: The Tribunal allowed the depreciation on residential properties, directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify whether the assessee claimed standard deduction under Section 24(a). If claimed, it should be disallowed to avoid double deduction. 2. Disallowance of Amortization of Premium Paid on Leasehold Land: The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, ruling that the amortization of lease premium is capital in nature and not allowable as per the Tribunal's earlier decisions. 3. Disallowance of Depreciation on Toll Road: The Tribunal allowed depreciation on toll roads as intangible assets under Section 32, directing the AO to re-compute it as per the Special Bench decision in Progressive Constructions Ltd. vs. ACIT. 4. Addition of Notional Interest Income in Respect of Toll Road from MPSIDC: The issue was restored to the AO for re-examination, following the Tribunal's earlier decisions to estimate income based on the latest decision of the Appellate Tribunal or any higher authority. 5. Disallowance Under Section 14A Read with Rule 8D in Respect of Interest: The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to re-compute the disallowance, considering strategic investments and investments held as stock in trade, as per the Tribunal's earlier decisions and the Special Bench decision in ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited. 6. Disallowance of Interest on Loan Given to IL&FS Employee Welfare Trust: The Tribunal sustained the disallowance, as the assessee failed to prove that the loan was given for business purposes. 7. Double Addition of Income: The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification, directing to examine the books of accounts and balance sheet to ensure no double addition of income. 8. Rejection of Claim for Deduction Under Section 36(1)(vii): The issue was restored to the CIT(A) to verify whether the assessee had withdrawn its claim. If not, the CIT(A) should decide the issue on merits. 9. Levy of Interest Under Section 234B: This ground was deemed consequential and did not require adjudication. 10. Deletion of Addition to "Income from House Property": The Tribunal’s decision on disallowance of depreciation on residential properties also applied to this issue. 11. Deletion of Disallowance Made Under Section 14A Read with Rule 8D: The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to re-compute the disallowance, similar to the decision in the assessee's appeal. 12. Treatment of Capital Expenditure on Computer Software Development Expenses as Revenue Expenditure: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, treating software development expenses as revenue expenditure based on earlier Tribunal decisions. 13. Deletion of Accrued Income from Toll Road: The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for re-examination, following the Tribunal's earlier decisions. 14. Deletion of Club Expenses: The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the disallowance, following the Bombay High Court's decision in the assessee's own case, treating club membership fees as revenue expenditure. 15. Deletion of Disallowance Claimed Under Section 36(1)(viii): The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii), as the assessee fulfilled the conditions of providing long-term finance for infrastructure projects. 16. Verification of Income Accruing as Per AIR-ITS Details: The Tribunal directed the AO to issue notices under Section 133(6) to verify the transactions reported in AIR and treat the confirmed payments as income of the assessee, providing the assessee an opportunity to rebut the confirmations. 17. Allowance of Depreciation on Computer Software and Peripherals at 60%: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing depreciation at 60% on computer software and peripherals, following the Special Bench decision in DCIT v. Datacraft India Ltd. Conclusion: The appeals were partly allowed, with several issues restored to the AO for re-examination and verification, following earlier Tribunal decisions and judicial precedents. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on several grounds, providing relief to the assessee and directing appropriate re-computation of disallowances and additions.
|
