9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iture incurred on asset owned by D.V.B as discussed in para-9 above 13756398/- Addition on a/c of misc. income including interest on advance not offered for taxation as discussed in para-10 above 92959567/- Addition on a/c of excess provision of leave encashment not offered for taxation as discussed in para-11 above 2281852 3. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal. Being aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A) the department is in appeal us and has taken following grounds of appeal:- "i) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 12069934/- made on account of disallowance of depreciation on the asset owned by NBCC, not by the assessee company. ii) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified in deleting of disallowance of Rs. 13756398/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of depreciation on installation of electric sub-station at ISBT owned by Delhi Vidyut Board, not by the assessee company. iii) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 929 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has purchased office space in the above building from NBCC and some portion of 5th floor was acquired from CRISIL. The AO found that formal sale deed was not executed in favour of the appellant and further observed in the assessment order that there is no evidence submitted during the assessment proceeding to prove that full price of this property was paid to NBCC. The appellants's AR in her submission dated 12.10.2011 had stated that full price of the property has been paid though the ownership is yet to be in the name of DMRC Ltd. As per the evidence submitted the appellant had intimated the earlier AO in the A. Y. 1997-98 vide letter dated 24.8.1999 that the building was purchased at a cost of Rs. 16.73 crores and the payment was made through cheque No. 108570 dated 31.3.1997 to Land & Development Officer, Ministry of Urban Development. The evidence submitted indicates that Ministry of Urban Development had allotted office space to DMRC Ltd. in the complex constructed by NBCC and the payment was made by the DMRC Ltd. directly to the Government of India to be adjusted against the various dues outstanding against NBCC for the allotment of land for construction for the above comple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of payment does not survive. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) because building was occupied by the assessee and full consideration had been paid to the Government of India for the above building. In the result this ground is dismissed. 7. Brief facts apropos Ground No. 2 are that from the details of additions to assets for assessment year 2003-04 in the fixed assets and schedule 3, the Assessing Officer noticed that the same included a sum of Rs. 6,28,86,362/- incurred as capital expenditure on assets not owned by the company but the depreciation on this capital expenditure was claimed. As per facts on records, this payment was made to Delhi Vidyut Board for installation of electric sub-station at ISBT for smooth running of train operations as company had incurred the whole expenditure from its own source and the assets were wholly and exclusively used by DMRC, therefore, depreciation was claimed. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation on the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee observing that the assets were owned by the DVB. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim following the order for assessment year 2003-04 inter alia ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We, accordingly, confirm the order of CIT(A). In the result this ground is dismissed. 10. Brief facts apropos Ground No. 3 are that the Assessing Officer noticed from schedule-9 of profit and loss account that interest on advances of Rs. 9,29,59,567/- was transferred to balance sheet as capital work in progress and was not taken into profit and loss account as other income. He noted that in the computation of total income the assessee had added all other heads of income mentioned in schedule-9 but did not add back the miscellaneous income (including interest on advance from vendors) of Rs. 9,29,59,567/-. He, accordingly, made an addition of this amount to the total income. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee had pointed out that the interest on advance pertaining to construction work had been capitalized considering the same as capital receipts. These interests on advances were reduced from project cost and depreciation was claimed only on balance amount. Ld. CIT(A), taking note of the fact that the assessee was consistently following this method of capitalizing interest on advance as it pertained to their construction work, deleted the addition made by Assessing Officer. 11. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
