9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1364 - AT - Income TaxDenying appellant carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation - HELD THAT - CIT(A) rightly observed that mere quantification and classification in accounts cannot deter assessee from claiming depreciation when factually the assets has been put to use since 2008, as per the account statement rendered by South Central Railways. The assessee has earned certain income of ₹ 8,20,74,197/- during the year which has rightly been brought to tax by the AO, as income from business and hence, depreciation ought to be allowed for the current year. The CIT(A) rightly directed the Assessing Officer to allow the quantum of depreciation. Thus, the order of the CIT(A) is reasoned order and there is no need to interfere with the same. Hence, appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation. 2. Taxation of income already taxed in a different assessment year. 3. Allowance of depreciation during the year despite assets shown as work in progress. 4. Adjustment of interest income against unallowable depreciation. 5. Allowance of current year's depreciation on WDV of assets without reducing depreciation for previous years. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Denial of Carry Forward of Unabsorbed Depreciation: The assessee contested the denial of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation amounting to ?6,96,52,145 for AY 2009-10 and ?14,34,52,539 for AY 2010-11, totaling ?21,31,04,684. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, recognizing that the assets were put to use since 2008, and depreciation was allowable under the provisions of Explanation 5 to section 32, irrespective of whether the deduction was claimed in the computation of total income. The CIT(A) referred to the Supreme Court decision in Kedarnath Jute Mills and KM Sugar Mills Ltd., emphasizing that the classification in accounts should not deter the legitimate claim of depreciation. 2. Taxation of Income Already Taxed in a Different Assessment Year: The assessee argued that the income of ?8,20,74,197 was already taxed in AY 2012-13. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action to tax the income in the current year but acknowledged the issue of double taxation. The CIT(A) directed the assessee to seek remedial action in AY 2012-13 for the deletion of the amount from the assessed income of that year, citing legal precedents that prohibit double taxation. 3. Allowance of Depreciation During the Year Despite Assets Shown as Work in Progress: The Revenue contended that depreciation should not be allowed as the assets were shown as work in progress in the balance sheet. The CIT(A) held that depreciation was allowable since the assets were factually put to use, as evidenced by the revenue generated from freight transportation. The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow depreciation for the current year, supporting the decision with references to relevant case laws and the provisions of section 32. 4. Adjustment of Interest Income Against Unallowable Depreciation: The CIT(A) allowed the adjustment of interest income of ?3,11,740 against the unallowable depreciation of the current year. The CIT(A) reasoned that the interest income, if held as business income, could be set off against business losses, and if considered as income from other sources, it could be set off against unabsorbed depreciation. 5. Allowance of Current Year's Depreciation on WDV of Assets Without Reducing Depreciation for Previous Years: The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee that the WDV for AY 2011-12 should be taken without reducing depreciation for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11, as no depreciation was allowed for those years. The CIT(A) referred to the definition of WDV in section 43(6) and the Supreme Court decision in Madeva Upendra Sinai, concluding that the AO should allow depreciation on the WDV for AY 2011-12 without reducing any depreciation for earlier years. Conclusion: The CIT(A) provided a reasoned order, directing the AO to allow the quantum of depreciation for the current year and addressing the issue of double taxation. The appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue were dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds. The judgment emphasized the principles of accurate classification, legitimate claims of depreciation, and avoidance of double taxation.
|
