9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We propose to take up both the appeals together for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of providing infrastructure services for townships. The assessee company is a subsidiary company of M/s.Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. (HPL) having developed the township in Haldia. Return of income was filed declaring a loss of Rs.3.98 crores when the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on a total income of Rs.1.33 crores. In the assessment the AO had treated the rent received as license fee as income from other sources in place of House Property income. He had not allowed deduction u/s 24(1) of the IT Act on account of repairs and maintenance and therefore the AO did not all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ats constructed on 110.60 acres of land and (ii) open land of 107.86 acres with all common facilities. Such open land is incidental to the enjoyment and beneficial use of the township flats. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs Trustees of Dharmamurthy Rao Bahadurcalavala Cunnan [(1988) 4SCC 260], the Ld. A/R has argued that the said open land of 107.86 acres with all common facilities fall within the definition of land appurtenant to the township flats. During the course of appeal, the ld. A/R submitted the copy oft eh assessment order u/s 143(3) for the A.Y. 2006-07 and also explained that the assessing officer has assessed the license fee in respect to the said land with all common facil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oads, open grounds, and (iii) rent of Rs.1,20,60,121/- for Hatiberia flats. The common facilities include all the infrastructural facilities like overhead tanks on which deductions u/s 24 have been already claimed and allowed. In my view, the appellant cannot claim depreciation on the same infrastructural facilities on which it has already claimed deduction u/s 24. In view of it, the order of the AO rejecting the claim of depreciation for the amount of Rs.95,34,885/- is confirmed. This ground of appeal is partly allowed." 4. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on the issues as raised by the revenue for the simple reason that the assessee himself had bifurcated the income to be shown as income as licencee and income from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
