9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penditure. (3) The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that daring the period of lease the assessee got the right of peaceful enjoyment of land for the purpose of carrying on the business and not the legal ownership of the land and thus expenditure incurred is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and is allowable expenditure under the provision of income Tax Act. (4) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the land in question was not acquired by the assessee and merely because the deed was registered the transaction in question would not assume a different character. The very registration of the lease deed as per the registration Act has not changed the ownership of the land. (5) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that by obtaining the land on lease the capital structure of the assessee did not undergo any change. (6) The C1T(A) failed to appreciate that the land which has been leased out to the assessee did not cease to be belonging to the lessor and therefore by payment of this lease rent the assets of the assessee company had not increased because the land continued to be the land of the lessor. (7) The C1T(A) failed to appreciate that the very s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010, which has been examined by Ld. AO. He disallowed claim of amortization on ground that these are expenditure being nature and therefore, not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. Ld. AO was of the opinion that assessee was driving enduring benefits by taking these land on lease over a period of 90 years and therefore, he held that expenses incurred is premium paid on amortization of leasehold land which is revenue in nature. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed additions made by Ld. AO. Aggrieved by order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us now. 6. Ground No. 1 to 7 deals with disallowance of amortization charges of leasehold land. 7. Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has not been conferred with legal ownership rights in respect of these lands, during the lease period. He submitted that assessee has not acquired these lands and was using these lands for carrying out its business activity for which rent was being paid. 8. Ld. Counsel further submitted that assessee had taken lease of three properties from the following leases: (1) JBM Industries Ltd., (2) Greater Noida Authority and (3) Maharashtra De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee in the three agreement made as per law. Needless to say that assessee would cooperate with assessing officer and provide with all necessary relevant documents as called for by him. Ld. AO is hereby directed to decide issue as per law. In the result the grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 8 14. This ground raised by assessee is in relation to disallowance of expenditure under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. It was contended before us that only those investments should be considered for taking value of investment, on which dividend has been earned. Ld. Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT reported in 378 ITR 33. 15. At the outset, Ld. DR does not object for issue being set aside to Ld. AO to decide it is in the light of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., (supra). Accordingly, we are inclined to set aside this issue to Ld. AO with a direction to recomputed disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D in light of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., vs. CIT (supra). In the result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell as in response to varies queries during the course of assessment proceedings. Ground No. 1 18. Ld. AO observed that assessee had claimed excess depreciation at rate of 60% on computer peripherals, which does not come under definition of computer as alleged by him. He accordingly, calculated excess depreciation claimed at Rs. 16,532/- and disallowed the same in the hands of assessee. 19. Aggrieved by additions made by Ld. AO assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), allow depreciation claimed by relying upon decision of this Tribunal in the case of Howarth India Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT reported in 140 TTJ 446. By order of Ld. CIT(A), revenue is in appeal before us now. 20. At the outset, it has been submitted that issue stands covered by decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., reported in 358 ITR 47 which has been followed in CIT vs. Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd., reported in 358 ITR 49. 21. Ld. DR is unable to place on record any contrary decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court. He places reliance upon order of Ld. AO. 22. We, therefore, respectfully following the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
