9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 258 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation on temporary structures - whether temporary bridges and roads constructed by the assessee for transportation of goods from port of work sites fall under temporary structures eligible for 100% depreciation or not ? - HELD THAT - Before us the assessee furnished copies of Government approved valuers report, site clearance certificate, contractor demobilization, checklist to buttress the agreement that the assessee has erected only temporary structures and those structures were later on demolished after completion of the projects. These evidences go to show that the assessee erected temporary structures and later on demolished those structures in which case depreciation at 100% is allowable. The evidences furnished before us in the form of site clearing certificate and the contractor demobilization check list which were dated 24.07.2015 and 12.10.2015 respectively appears to have not produced before the authorities below. Therefore, since these evidences were not furnished before the AO, matter restored back before AO.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of 100% depreciation claim on temporary structures by the Assessing Officer (AO). 2. Evidence provided by the assessee to substantiate the claim. 3. Decisions and precedents cited by the assessee to support the claim. 4. Observations and decisions of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. 5. Tribunal's analysis and final decision. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Denial of 100% Depreciation Claim on Temporary Structures by the AO: The primary issue revolves around the AO's denial of the assessee's claim for 100% depreciation on temporary structures constructed at project sites. The AO observed that the certificate provided by the assessee did not certify the value, nature of construction, complete description, material details, or labor costs for the temporary structures. The AO also noted that a similar claim was denied in the previous assessment year (AY 2010-11) due to a lack of supporting evidence. 2. Evidence Provided by the Assessee to Substantiate the Claim: The assessee submitted various pieces of evidence, including: - A certificate from S. Maitra & Company, a government-approved valuer, certifying the erection of temporary structures. - Site clearance certificates and contractor demobilization checklists from the Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Ltd. (ISPRL), indicating that the temporary structures were removed after project completion. - Additional evidences such as ledger copies, vouchers, payment invoices, and photographs of the temporary structures. 3. Decisions and Precedents Cited by the Assessee to Support the Claim: The assessee relied on several legal precedents to support their claim for 100% depreciation on temporary structures, including: - Shalivahana Constructions Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2007) 12 SOT 406 (Hyd.) - DCIT Vs. Win Medicare Ltd. (2011) 11 ITR (Trib.) 66 (Del.) - CIT Vs. Print Systems & Products 203 CTR 247 (Mad.) - DCIT Vs. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. (61 TTJ 656, Delhi) - Comfort Living Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (363 ITR 182, Delhi) These cases established that temporary structures erected for specific projects, which are later demolished, qualify for 100% depreciation. 4. Observations and Decisions of the CIT(A): The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, allowing only 10% depreciation on the temporary structures. The CIT(A) referenced previous orders and observed that the structures, such as site offices, labor quarters, and canteens, were not purely temporary and could be used beyond the project duration. The CIT(A) also noted discrepancies in the depreciation claims made in the tax audit report versus the computation of income. 5. Tribunal's Analysis and Final Decision: The Tribunal reviewed the evidence and legal precedents provided by the assessee. It noted that the assessee had not fully furnished all details of the temporary structures before the AO. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) did not adequately consider the additional evidence submitted by the assessee or seek a remand report from the AO. The Tribunal acknowledged the evidence indicating that the structures were temporary and demolished after project completion. It cited relevant case laws supporting 100% depreciation for temporary structures. However, since the evidence was not fully presented to the AO, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for re-examination. The AO was directed to consider the new evidence and decide afresh in accordance with the law, providing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their claim. Conclusion: The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issue was remanded to the AO for de novo adjudication based on the additional evidence and legal precedents. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a thorough examination of the evidence to determine the eligibility for 100% depreciation on temporary structures.
|
