9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 453 - AT - Income TaxProvisions for accrued Expenses - ascertained liabilities OR contingent liabilities - HELD THAT - Except electricity charges and payment for other charges the provision under liability towards payment to contractors is also lesser and in comparison to provision. Thus the AO is also directed to examine that what treatment has been given to this excess amount of provision by the assessee. With these directions the issue of provision towards payment to contractors is restored to the file of the AO for verification and examination. In the chart showing provision and another chart showing actual payments we also note that the assessee has made provision towards interest on Government in India loan interest on initial investment of Government of India loan but in the actual payment table these two items are missing and there is no details available on the record about actual payment by the assessee on these two heads. Thus these two issues ae also restored to the file of the AO to examine and verify the actual amount of expenditure and treatment of excess amount of provision if any by the assessee in the books of account. Accordingly this ground of revenue for A.Y. 2013-14 is restored to the file of the AO and thus allowed for statistical purposes. Accrued interest on investment Replacement Rehabilitation Modernisation of Capital Assets Fund - HELD THAT - We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2007-08 2011 (3) TMI 1797 - ITAT CUTTACK which has been followed by the ld CIT(A) in the impugned order. CIT(A) has relied on the judgment of Sitaldas Tirathdas 1960 (11) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT wherein it is held that in deciding on the issue of diversion of income it is the nature of obligation which is the decision fact and where by virtue of obligation the income never reaches the assessee same cannot be brought to tax. Further ld D.R. has not brought on record any order of the higher forum that the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2007-08 (supra) has been reversed. - Decided against revenue. Depreciation @ 15% on railways and rolling stock treating the same as Plant Machinery - whether such items should be covered under the head Buildings other than those used mainly for residential purpose entitling them to depreciation @ 10% as per Rule-5 of I. T. Rules New Appendixl( Note-1). - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has allowed the depreciation @ 15% following the decision of this Bench in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 2011 (3) TMI 1797 - ITAT CUTTACK wherein the Tribunal has followed the decision of CIT vs Dr. B.Ventatrao 1999 (2) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT . No other decision was placed on record by ld D.R. to take a contrary view than the view taken by ITAT in assessee s own case (supra). Hence we are inclined to uphold the order of the ld CIT(A) and dismiss Ground of the revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made under the head 'Provisions for accrued Expenses' as ascertained liabilities versus contingent liabilities. 2. Deletion of addition on account of accrued interest on investment Replacement, Rehabilitation, Modernisation of Capital Assets Fund. 3. Deletion of addition on account of accrued interest on investment Development, Repayment of loans, and contingencies fund. 4. Allowance of depreciation @ 15% on "railways and rolling stock" treating the same as "Plant & Machinery" versus as "Buildings". Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition Made Under the Head 'Provisions for Accrued Expenses': The primary issue was whether the provision for accrued expenses amounting to ?285,71,27,417/- should be treated as ascertained liabilities or contingent liabilities. The assessee, engaged in running a major port, claimed these expenses as ascertained liabilities. The AO disallowed this claim, treating them as contingent liabilities. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, observing that the expenses were regular and mandatory, thus ascertained. The Tribunal, upon review, noted discrepancies in the actual payments versus provisions, especially in audit fees and payment to contractors. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification of the treatment of excess provisions, directing that the AO examine the actual payments and treatment of excess amounts in the books of accounts. 2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Accrued Interest on Investment Replacement, Rehabilitation, Modernisation of Capital Assets Fund: The assessee argued that the accrued interest of ?52,69,00,000/- on this fund was not taxable as it was diverted at source by a government directive. The CIT(A) upheld this view, citing a precedent from the Tribunal for the assessment year 2007-08, which stated that such interest was diverted at source and not taxable. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Sitaldas Tirathdas, which held that income diverted at source by an overriding charge is not taxable. The Tribunal found no contrary evidence from the Revenue and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. 3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Accrued Interest on Investment Development, Repayment of Loans, and Contingencies Fund: Similar to issue 2, the assessee contended that the accrued interest of ?41,08,00,000/- on this fund was also diverted at source by a government directive. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal's earlier decision. The Tribunal upheld this deletion, reiterating the principles from the Sitaldas Tirathdas case and noting the absence of any reversal of the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 2007-08 by a higher forum. Thus, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. 4. Allowance of Depreciation @ 15% on "Railways and Rolling Stock": The AO had allowed depreciation at 10%, treating these assets as buildings. The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow 15% depreciation, treating them as plant and machinery, based on the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 2007-08. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs Dr. B.Ventatrao, which supported the higher depreciation rate for such assets. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground due to lack of contrary evidence. Conclusion: The Tribunal's detailed analysis led to a partial allowance of the Revenue's appeals for statistical purposes, primarily restoring certain issues to the AO for further examination. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on the deletion of additions related to accrued interest on specific funds and the allowance of higher depreciation rates, citing relevant precedents and legal principles. The order was pronounced on 8/10/2020.
|
