9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 212 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IA - Disallowance in respect of inland port and the rail system, depreciation on assets retired from active use, on assets not registered, on land and also on registration fees - HELD THAT - Claim under section 80IA of the Act on inland container depots covered by ground No. 1 of assessee s appeal and rail system (rolling stock) covered by ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue, in assessee s own case 2017 (10) TMI 1324 - DELHI HIGH COURT observed that the Revenue s contention was resurrected for the previous years in assessee s own case 2012 (5) TMI 260 - DELHI HIGH COURT and Hon ble High Court approved the reliance on previous ruling in respect of rolling stock also. Hon ble Supreme Court in assessee s own case reported in 2018 (5) TMI 359 - SUPREME COURT held that inland container depots or inland ports, subject to provisions of section 80IA of the Act and deduction can be claimed for income earned out of these depots. On this score ground No. 1 of assessee s appeal stands allowed and ground No. 1 of Revenue s appeal stands dismissed. Disallowance on account of depreciation on intangible assets being value of license acquired from the Indian Railways for running the container trains on Indian Railways - HELD THAT - In assessee s own case 2018 (9) TMI 142 - ITAT DELHI a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the light of the decision of the coordinate Bench 2017 (1) TMI 1586 - ITAT DELHI for the assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 wherein this issue was covered and dealt with in extenso, reached a conclusion that the license acquired by the assessee from the Indian Railways for running the container trains on Indian Railways is a commercial right and it is eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. In view of this consistent view,and also fortified by the decision of Areva 2012 (4) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT we hold that commercial right acquired by the assessee by way of this license for an enduring benefit for a period of 20 years would amount to capital asset and eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Disallowance being the claim of deduction on account of advance lease rent paid for the land taken on long-term lease for business purpose on pro rata basis - HELD THAT - As submitted that the facts and circumstances involved in this matter also are identical to those obtaining for the assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 as well as 2010-11 and therefore the issue requires factual verification at the end of the learned Assessing Officer, and it is prayed that the same course may be followed for this year also. We grant the request and remand the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for necessary verification and to decide it according to law on such factual verification of the details to be furnished by the assessee. Disallowance of depreciation on the assets retired from the active use - HELD THAT - This issue is also squarely covered by the decisions in earlier assessment years. In CIT vs. Yamaha motor India Private Limited 2009 (8) TMI 27 - DELHI HIGH COURT held that actual user of the machinery is not required with respect to discarded machinery and the condition which was eligible for depreciation is that the machinery being used for the purpose of the business would mean that the discarded missionary is used for the purpose of the business in the earlier years for which depreciation was allowed. Relying upon such observations of the Hon ble High Court in assessee s own case, a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal for the assessment year 2008-09 2017 (1) TMI 1586 - ITAT DELHI held the issue in favour of the assessee. Disallowance of depreciation on the assets which were not registered in the name of the assessee - HELD THAT - This issue is also squarely covered by the order dated 31/10/2017 of the Hon ble High Court in 2017 (10) TMI 1324 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein it was held that inasmuch as the assessee has been paying all the amounts to the transferor and obtained possession, and has also been using the same for business purpose, depreciation is allowable as held by the Tribunal.
Issues:
Challenging order by Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2011-12 - Cross appeals by assessee and Revenue - Disallowance under section 80IA of the Act - Depreciation on various assets - Advance lease rent - Disallowance of depreciation on assets retired from active use - Disallowance of depreciation on assets not registered in the name of the assessee. Analysis: 1. The assessee, engaged in handling and transportation of containerised cargo, filed return declaring taxable income. The Assessing Officer computed income after disallowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act for inland port, rail system, and other assets. Ld. CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, granting relief on certain deductions while sustaining others. Cross appeals were filed by both parties. 2. The Ld. AR argued that additions made by the Assessing Officer were previously ruled in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal and High Court. The Tribunal and High Court orders were produced as evidence. The Tribunal will review these aspects based on previous rulings. 3. In the case of inland container depots and rail system, the High Court and Supreme Court rulings favored the assessee, allowing deductions under section 80IA of the Act. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and Revenue's appeal was dismissed on this ground. 4. The disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets, such as license from Indian Railways, was challenged. The Tribunal held that such licenses qualify as commercial rights eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Hence, the assessee's appeal on this ground was allowed. 5. Disallowance of advance lease rent paid for land taken on long-term lease was contested. The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for factual verification, following similar cases in previous assessment years. 6. Disallowance of depreciation on assets retired from active use and assets not registered in the name of the assessee were also challenged. Previous rulings favored the assessee, and the Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeals on these grounds. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) decided in favor of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 on the issue of depreciation on assets not registered. Following the same legal and factual identity, the Tribunal upheld the decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. 8. In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was allowed in part for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal pronounced the order on 22nd January 2020.
|
