9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1027 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of depreciation on assets acquired from M/s Sahney Krikwood and leased back - Held that - As long as the asset is utilized for the purpose of business of the assessee, the requirement of Section 32 will stand satisfied, notwithstanding non-usage of the asset itself by the assessee. On a combined reading of Section 2(13) and Section 2(24) the income derived from leasing of the trucks would be business income, or income derived in the course of business, and has been so assessed. Hence, it fulfills the second requirement of Section 32 viz. that the asset must be used in the course of business. See ICDS Ltd. Vs. CIT 2013 (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT Interest u/s 220 (2)- Held that - Interest u/s 220 (20) should be calculated from the date of fresh assessment when the assessment is de novo set aside and the interest could not be calculated from the date of original assessment order, which is very clear from the CBDT Circular No. 334 dated 3/04/1982. Thus we direct the AO to recomputed interest accordingly. Hence, we allow this ground of appeal of the assessee. Disallowance of provision of leave encashment - Held that - CIT-A has decided the issue by following the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 2000 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court wherein held provision for meeting the liability for encashment of earned leave by the employee is an admissible deduction
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Disallowance of depreciation on assets given on lease. 3. Levy of interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Treatment of principal amount of capital recovery as income. 5. Disallowance of provision for leave encashment. 6. Levy of interest under section 234C and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Proceedings Initiated Under Section 147: The assessee contended that the reassessment proceedings under section 147 were invalid as the information regarding the claim of depreciation on assets given on lease was already available on record. However, the assessee decided not to press this ground of appeal. Consequently, this ground was dismissed as not pressed. 2. Disallowance of Depreciation on Assets Given on Lease: The assessee challenged the disallowance of depreciation on assets leased to Sahney Krikwood Pvt. Ltd. and PABST Cola Co. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that similar issues were previously decided in favor of the assessee in its own cases for different assessment years and in the case of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Sheba Properties Ltd. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court judgment in ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT and decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and the Gujarat High Court, which supported the assessee's claim for depreciation. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the ground of appeal related to the disallowance of depreciation. 3. Levy of Interest Under Section 220(2): The assessee argued that interest under section 220(2) should be levied only from the end of 30 days from the service of a fresh demand notice pursuant to the order giving effect to the Tribunal’s order. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 1997-98, where it was held that interest should be calculated from the date of fresh assessment. The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the interest accordingly and allowed this ground of appeal. 4. Treatment of Principal Amount of Capital Recovery as Income: The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s direction not to consider the principal amount of capital recovery as income. The Tribunal noted that the issue had already been decided in favor of the assessee in its own appeal for the assessment year 1997-98. Consequently, this ground of appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. 5. Disallowance of Provision for Leave Encashment: The revenue contested the deletion of the disallowance of provision for leave encashment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, which was based on the Supreme Court judgment in Bharat Earth Movers vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, allowing the provision for leave encashment based on actuarial valuation as an ascertained liability. This ground of appeal was dismissed. 6. Levy of Interest Under Section 234C and 201(1A): The assessee challenged the levy of interest under section 234C and 201(1A). The Tribunal noted that the ground related to section 234C was consequential in nature and did not require adjudication. Regarding section 201(1A), the assessee did not press this ground due to the smallness of the amount, leading to its dismissal. Conclusion: The appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1998-99 were partly allowed, while the appeal for the assessment year 1996-97 was allowed. The revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1997-98 was dismissed.
|
