9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t common issue is as follows: (2) The CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the assessee in respect of addition made towards variation in the valuation of closing stock despite the fact that the provisions of sec. 145A of the IT Act, 1963 is clear in its terms that the value of the liability towards taxes, cess/duty whatsoever name called are to be added to the value of the closing stock for the purpose of determination of the closing stock valuation as at the end of the previous year. 3. After hearing both the parties, we find that similar issue was considered by this Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2004-05 in ITA No. 1834/Hyd/2012 wherein the Tribunal vide order dated 3.5.2013 held as follows: "We have heard both the parties and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ground is as follows: (3) The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the findings of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim of depreciation on Sub- Merged Arc Furnace in the light of the fact that the asset was not put to use for any part of the previous year and that the asset was not put to use for business purposes. The CIT(A), therefore, erred in directing the AO to allow depreciation on the asset which was not put to use for any part of the previous year. 6. After hearing both the parties on this issue, we find similar issue was considered by this Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA Nos. 410-411/Hyd/2007 for A.Ys. 2001-02 and 2003-04. The Tribunal vide order dated 21.5.2010 decided the issue against the assessee by observing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at all used at any time and there was no intention to use the Plant. Instead various parts of the plant were removed and used for some other purpose. In these circumstances, we cannot apply the ratio laid down by various case law cited by the assessee counsel. In our opinion, even after introduction of concept of block assets, the identity of the individual assets were not lost and the assessing officer can restrict the depreciation having regard to the usage of the SAF plant. In the present case, since capitalization of this SAF Plant, it was not in operation as such it cannot enter into block asset and the condition laid down in Sec. 32(1) not fulfilled and the assessee is not entitled for depreciation on this plant. This ground of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the expenditure on stores was not capitalised and is not a capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. 10. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that the stores written off are revenue items. There is no finding by the AO that the write off was not bona fide or not refuted the claim that consumables connected with SAF were all revenue items, which are to assist the SAF to perform its functions. In fact the assessee has made written off of non-SAF items as per a committee's recommendations, thus the assessee has taken a conscious decision in writing off armed by a committee's report and in the absence of refuting such report, the CIT(A) was of the view that the AO was not justified in disallowing even a part of the claim. Accordingly, the CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
