9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of assessee. Disallowance of depreciation - Held that:- The assessee has filed details of aggregate assets and liabilities which were received on 31.03.2003 and the net fixed assets received on transfer scheme was ₹ 834.01 crores and the assessee claimed depreciation at the lowest rate and whatever addition in the assets was made, the CIT(A) has allowed 50% of the claim of the assessee. Therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in granting relief to the assessee on this issue - in favour of assessee - ITA No. 179/Agra/2011 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2012 - Bhavnesh Saini And A. L. Gehlot , JJ. Appellant by : Waseem Arshad, Sr. D.R. Respondent by : Deependra Mohan, C.A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave heard the ld. Representatives of both the parties, perused the findings of the authorities below and considered the material available on record. 3. Only two issues arise out of the above grounds of appeal. On issue No. 1, the Revenue challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) in allowing claim of ₹ 9,09,20,000/- u/s. 43B of the IT Act. The assessee is incorporated as a limited company on 01.05.2003. It was bifurcated from UPPCL. In the instant year, the AO has disallowed electricity duty and P.F. liability amounting to ₹ 187,88,92,881/-. Out of this amount, electricity duty was ₹ 19,68,82,152/- and PF liability was ₹ 168,20,10,720/-. The electricity duty was actually paid by the customers so as to remit to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons made before the ld. CIT(A) and referred to PB-35, which is the debit note issued by UPPCL dated 28.12.2005, in which it was certified that the above amount was released during the accounting months from 12.08.2003 to 31.03.2004 and hence, the amount was paid before due date of filing of the return. He has also relied upon unreported order of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of ITO vs. M/s. Madhya Gujrat Vij Co. Ltd. in ITA No. 2015/Ahd./2010 dated 08.04.2011, in which it was held that in view of the fact that the amount has been recovered by the Government of Gujrat by way of adjustment from the grant given, the same is allowable u/s. 43B of the Act. Copy of the order is placed on record. 5. On consideration of the rival submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sets was of ₹ 834.01 crores and not ₹ 671.94 crores, as mentioned by the AO and depreciation thereon has been claimed at only 10%, i.e., at the lowest rate in the depreciation chart in the Rules. Secondly, as regards the addition of assets during the year, the AO had disallowed depreciation which was claimed by the assessee for only half of the year. The AO has, however, rejected the depreciation on such assets. Since the AO has not denied that such assets were not acquired / purchased during the year or not received on transfer, the claim of depreciation could not have been denied. For want of date of transfer/ acquisition of such assets, only 50% of the depreciation claimed @ 10% was held to be justifiable admissible depreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
