9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... express provision of law, disallowance made of ₹ 89,52,989/- representing depreciation on plant and machinery has been rightly deleted by the ld CIT(A) and the impugned order is valid in the eyes of law and we confirm the same - Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 4990/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2014 - Shri G. D. Agarwal And Shri A. T. Varkey,JJ. For the Appellant : Satpal Singh, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Gautam Jain, FCA ORDER Per A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member This is an appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi dated 27.06.2013 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The grounds of appeal are as follows:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property of ₹ 8,49,319/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act ) was issued and served on the assessee on 25.08.2011. The assessee company was asked to explain as to why the income from interest on fixed deposit with the banks and rent from the leasing out of factory amounting to ₹ 248.02 lakhs should not be assessed and charged to tax as Income from Other Sources . Pursuant to the show-cause, the assessee reiterated and claimed depreciation of ₹ 89,72,224/- u/s 57 of the Act. Dissatisfied with the justification of the assessee, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim. 4. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Assessing Officer the assessee preferr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore according to the ld AR the conclusion of the Assessing Officer in this respect is not based on any material whatsoever on record and Assessing Officer seriously erred in doing so. The ld AR relied on the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of the CIT Vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. 163 Taxman 482 (del). The ld AR stated that the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer that in the relevant assessment year under consideration there was no business activity carried out by the assessee also was not factually correct. The ld AR stated that the assessee had signed a lease agreement dated 31.10.2008 with M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd and M/s. Reliance Life Sciences Ltd; and the agreement came into force w.e.f. 01.01.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) income from machinery, plant or furniture belonging to the assessee and let on hire, if the income is not chargeable to income-tax under the head Profits and gains of business of profession . Deductions. 57. The income chargeable under the head Income from other sources shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely:- (i) .. (ia) . (ii) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (2) of section 56, deductions, so far as may be, in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) and clause (c) of section 30, section 31 and (sub-section (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38. 8. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had rightly disallowed 50% of the said expense and therefore the ld CIT(A) erred in law by allowing further expenditure to the tune of ₹ 10,28,827/- and therefore the order of the ld CIT(A) may be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer restored. On the other hand the ld AR submitted that the expenses incurred was for maintaining the establishment and expenses was incurred for complying certain mandatory statutory obligation and the expenses incurred for the same amounted to ₹ 43,95,836/- , however the Assessing Officer made ad-hoc disallowance of ₹ 21,97,918/- without any valid reason. The ld AR brought it to our notice that for the previous years, from the Assessment Year 2002-03 to 2008-09, expenses were allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
