2015 (2) TMI 1355 - AT - Income Tax

Depreciation on road/bridge - assessee is in the business of development of infrastructural facilities and developed a bye-pass road / bridge in Coimbatore - HELD THAT - We find that the ld. CIT(A) by following the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05 2006-07 2010 (11) TMI 1040 - ITAT CHENNAI directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Claim of depreciation on road/bridge by the assessee.
- Disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer.
- Appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
- Applicability of Tribunal decisions in favor of the assessee.
- Amortization of project cost.
- Dismissal of Revenue's appeal by the Tribunal.

Analysis:

Claim of Depreciation on Road/Bridge:
The assessee, engaged in infrastructural development, claimed depreciation on a road/bridge. The Assessing Officer denied the claim, stating that the assessee had already amortized the cost of the road/bridge over the construction period. However, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim based on previous Tribunal decisions in favor of the assessee for other assessment years.

Applicability of Tribunal Decisions:
The Tribunal considered previous decisions in the assessee's favor for assessment years 2002-03 to 2006-07. The Tribunal also referred to a decision for the assessment year 2008-09 where it was held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the road as per the rate applicable to buildings. The Tribunal upheld the direction to allow depreciation based on the similar facts of the case.

Amortization of Project Cost:
The issue of amortization of project cost became irrelevant once the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the depreciation claim on the road/bridge. The Tribunal dismissed this issue for statistical purposes.

Dismissal of Revenue's Appeal:
The Revenue appealed against the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on project assets. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide evidence that the Tribunal's order had been reversed or set aside by a higher court. As a result, the Tribunal confirmed the ld. CIT(A)'s orders for all four years and dismissed the Revenue's appeals for lack of merit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to allow the depreciation claim on the road/bridge by the assessee based on previous Tribunal decisions and the absence of evidence showing reversal of the Tribunal's orders.