2019 (9) TMI 298 - AT - Income Tax

Depreciation on assets taken on lease - HELD THAT - As noted that in the very first year i.e. AY 2011-12, the depreciation has already allowed the claim of depreciation. We noted that in the income tax code, there is a provision/ concept of block of asset and once any asset enters into block asset and claim of depreciation in very first year is allowed, in subsequent year the deprecation cannot be disallowed in case the first year is not disturbed. We noted that even in subsequent years, the Revenue is allowing the claim of the assessee as noted in above chart. Hence, we allow the claim of depreciation on the issue of consistency. This issue of assessee s appeal is allowed. Disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income by invoking the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D - HELD THAT - When these facts were confronted to the learned Counsel for the assessee, he fairly agreed that the disallowance can be restricted to the extent of ₹ 21,44,348/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The learned Sr. Departmental Representative has not made any argument on the above facts. Hence, we direct the AO to compute the disallowance accordingly. This issue of assessee s appeal is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on assets taken on lease.
2. Disallowance of expenses related to exempt income under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Assets Taken on Lease:
The first issue concerns the disallowance of depreciation on assets taken on lease from Hewlett Packard Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd. (HPFS). The assessee argued that the assets were acquired under a finance lease scheme, making them the owner of the assets, and thus eligible to claim depreciation. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed the Assessing Officer's (AO) disallowance, stating that both the assessee and HPFS claimed depreciation on the same assets, which is not permissible. The assessee contended that once an asset is included in the block of assets and depreciation is allowed in the first year, subsequent depreciation claims cannot be disallowed if the first year's claim is not disturbed. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the depreciation was allowed in the initial year and subsequent years, and thus, disallowance in the current year is inconsistent. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation.

2. Disallowance of Expenses Related to Exempt Income Under Section 14A Read with Rule 8D:
The second issue involves the disallowance of expenses related to exempt income. The assessee had earned exempt income and made a suo moto disallowance of ?40,13,000/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The AO, however, computed the disallowance at ?7,59,22,738/- as per Rule 8D, allowing the assessee's disallowance and making an additional disallowance of ?7,19,09,738/-. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to ?43,87,355/-, considering the ITAT's findings in earlier years. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had computed disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) at ?21,44,348/-, and the CIT(A) had accepted the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) amounting to ?21,52,635/-. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to ?21,44,348/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii), thus partly allowing the assessee's appeal and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of depreciation and partly allowed the appeal concerning the disallowance of expenses related to exempt income. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the rectification application appeal was deemed infructuous.