9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 546 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation on fixed assets i.e., golf course - HELD THAT - As the issue of golf course being ready to use and operation thereof having been commenced in AY.2007-08 2012 (6) TMI 904 - ITAT HYDERABAD stands decided in Revenue s favour in the tribunal order and the tax appeal against the same is pending before the hon'ble jurisdictional high court. That being the case, we adopt judicial consistency and confirm the impugned depreciation disallowance. More so, in view of the fact that learned co-ordinate bench has already applied its mind and no evidence to the contrary has come from the taxpayer s side. Coming to the assessee s case that it had derived receipts in FY.2007-08, Mr.Raghuram made a valiant attempt to refer to the paper book on record. It, however, transpired during the course of hearing that the said receipts pertain to the period from 01-04-2008 onwards relevant to AY.2009-10 only than covering the period from 01-04-2007 to 31-02-2008. We thus affirm both the learned lower authorities action disallowing assessee s depreciation claim in the given facts and circumstances. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation claims for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09. 2. Classification of interest income as "income from other sources." 3. Commencement of business and readiness of fixed assets for use. 4. Ownership and leasehold rights over the land and assets. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Depreciation Claims for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09: The core issue revolves around the disallowance of the assessee's depreciation claims by the lower authorities. The assessee contended that the Golf Course was ready for use, and thus, depreciation should be allowed. However, the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the depreciation on the grounds that the business had not commenced, and the fixed assets were not ready for use. The tribunal upheld this disallowance, noting that the issue had already been decided in Revenue's favor in the previous tribunal order, which was pending appeal before the jurisdictional high court. 2. Classification of Interest Income as "Income from Other Sources": The AO classified the interest income earned by the assessee as "income from other sources" instead of business income. The CIT(A) upheld this classification, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that interest income earned before the commencement of business should be treated as income from other sources. The tribunal affirmed this view, noting that the assessee's claim was not supported by evidence. 3. Commencement of Business and Readiness of Fixed Assets for Use: The assessee argued that the Golf Course was ready for use by the end of the previous year, and thus, the business had commenced. However, the CIT(A) found that the statutory permissions for developing the land were not obtained by November 2006, indicating that the development/construction had not started. The tribunal noted that mere preparation for use does not amount to actual use, and depreciation can only be claimed if the asset is used for business, which was not the case here. 4. Ownership and Leasehold Rights Over the Land and Assets: The CIT(A) and the tribunal concluded that the assessee was neither the owner nor had leasehold rights over the assets, as these rights were transferred to M/s. Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT and CIT vs. Sahney Steel & Press Works (P) Ltd., which held that the beneficial owner is entitled to depreciation. In this case, M/s. Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd. was the beneficial owner enjoying 95% of the revenues and had control over the assets. Conclusion: The tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation claims and the classification of interest income as "income from other sources." It concluded that the assessee had not commenced its business, and the fixed assets were not ready for use. Additionally, the assessee was neither the owner nor had leasehold rights over the assets, which were transferred to M/s. Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd., the beneficial owner entitled to depreciation. The appeals were dismissed accordingly.
|
