9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y for the purpose of business, as the above mentioned amount was paid as excise duty, as assessee has converted its unit from 100% EOU under EPCG Scheme to DTA Unit and would sell goods in domestic market so this amount was paid for the more profitable business and finding of the tribunal in this regard treating the above amount as revenue expenditure in the alternate cannot be found faulty - Decided in favour of assessee Depreciation on the purchase of plant and machinery - whether claim admissible on the actual cost of the plant and machinery excluding the custom duty, which was paid subsequent? - Held that:- Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1992 (1) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court )has opined that it is inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his question of law is also decided against the revenue and in favour of the respondent, assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 378 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2017 - Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal And Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Misra, JJ. For Appellant : Shubham Agrawal,C.S.C. For Respondent : R.S. Agrawal ORDER Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Misra, J. Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut and Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Ghaziabad have preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against M/S Jindal Ployster Ltd., 19th Km. Hapur Bulandshahr Road, Gulaethi against the judgment and order dated 6.1.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 4020/DEL/2001. On 11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he cost of fixed assets. This amount so paid was ₹ 8,19,44,049/-. The assessee claimed depreciation on the new cost value of the plant by adding the excise duty in it and then alternate assessee claimed exemption as business expenditure. Assessing Officer did not allow either depreciation or allow the claim of assessee as business expenditure. Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the plea of assessee regarding expenditure of ₹ 8,19,44,049/- and returned the finding that assessee is entitled to deduction either by way of depreciation or by way of allowance of entire expenditure, as revenue expenditure as it has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Since Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. Vs. CIT, 194 ITR 294 (SC). Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined in the above case that it is incontrovertible that, under Section 43 (1) read with Section 43 (6), the Officer has to determine the actual cost for all assets, new and old, and the definition in Section 43 (1) only requires that, at the time of doing so, he has to examine whether the actual cost has been fully met out by the assessee or has been met by someone else in whole or in part. The words has been met squarely fit into this reading of the section and the use of those words does not restrict the definition in Section 43 (1) to assets acquired in the previous year and moreover, in appeal the representative of the department conceded that the judgment of the Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained in the later part of the Rule, which provides that the respondent may support the order appealed against on any of the grounds decided against him. A cursory reading of this part divulges that the respondent can support the impugned order on any of the ground, which were decided against him. In the present case assessee has taken this ground before Commissioner (Appeals) and if he has not further challenged the finding on this ground then as per Rule 27 of the Income Tax Rules assessee can advance his arguments even though he has not filed cross objection against the finding on the assessee against him. So learned ITAT did not commit any mistake in permitting the assessee to support the order of C.I.T. (Appeals) on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
