9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 310 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation on moulds - @ 30% OR 15% - Held that - In the given facts and circumstances, Tribunal Judgment in the case of BPL Refrigeration Ltd. 2004 (3) TMI 317 - ITAT BANGALORE-A and Kinetic Honda Motor Ltd. (2000 (3) TMI 201 - ITAT PUNE) are applicable to the assessee s case, respectfully following them, we uphold order of the CIT(A) allowing higher depreciation at the rate of 40% on moulds. . We also find that in A.Y. 2003-04 and 2007-08 similar issue was decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in favour of the assessee by relying on the decision of Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2001- 02. Before us, Revenue has not brought any contrary binding decision in its support nor could controvert the findings of CIT(A). - Decided against revenue. Addition on account of delayed payment on employee s contribution to provident fund - Held that - . In view of the undisputed fact that the Employees share of contribution of Provident fund was paid after the prescribed due date, and following the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT), we are of the view that the AO was justified in disallowing the belated payments and thus this ground of Revenue is allowed. - Decided against assesse.
Issues:
1. Allowability of higher depreciation on dies and moulds at 30%. 2. Addition on account of delayed payment of employee's contribution to provident fund. Issue 1: Allowability of higher depreciation on dies and moulds at 30% The case involved the Revenue's appeal against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order for A.Y. 2006-07 regarding the deletion of depreciation on moulds at 30%. The AO disallowed the higher depreciation claimed by the Assessee, limiting it to 15% instead of 30%. However, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal based on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the Assessee's own case for A.Y. 2001-02, where it was held that the moulds used for manufacturing plastic goods were eligible for higher depreciation. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal also upheld this decision in A.Y. 2001-02. The Revenue challenged this decision, but failed to provide any contrary binding decision or evidence to support their case. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with Ld. CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Issue 2: Addition on account of delayed payment of employee's contribution to provident fund The second ground of appeal involved the addition made by the AO on account of delayed payment of Employee's contribution to provident fund. The AO disallowed the contribution as it was paid after the prescribed due dates. However, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, citing that the contributions were paid before the due date of filing the return. The Revenue challenged this decision, referring to a judgment by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a different case. The Tribunal, considering the undisputed fact that the payments were made after the prescribed due dates, upheld the AO's decision to disallow the belated payments. Consequently, this ground of the Revenue's appeal was allowed, and the overall appeal was partly allowed. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of higher depreciation on dies and moulds and delayed payment of employee's contribution to provident fund. The Tribunal upheld Ld. CIT(A)'s decision on the first issue, allowing the higher depreciation based on previous rulings. However, on the second issue, the Tribunal agreed with the AO's disallowance of the belated payments, following a judgment by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court.
|
