9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ards its activities pertaining to Mumbai Circle, the very same issue was answered by the Dispute Resolution Panel in favour of the appellant s group companies. The decision rendered by the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai on 21.09.2017 in respect of Objection No.101 has been placed on record. We had adjourned the matter on few occasions to enable the respondent to place material indicating whether the decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel was under challenge before any of the authorities but no such affidavit has been filed. In any case, in our considered view, Question B raised by the Appellant is a substantial question meriting consideration and the High Court ought to have admitted the appeal even with respect to Question B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in upholding the disallowance of depreciation to the tune of ₹ 5,10,79,752/- claimed on account of Asset Reconstruction Cost ( ARC ) being an ascertained liability, or alternatively allowing deduction for such expenditure in the year of execution of lease agreements or over the period of lease? B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding that installation of cell site towers amounted to extension of existing business as stipulated in proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and, thereby warranting proportionate disallowance of interest under that provision? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gards Questions A C while as regards Question D onwards, the matter stands remitted to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. We are thus left with the issue regarding refusal of the High Court to consider Question B as substantial question of law. The discussion in the Order under appeal regarding Question B was as under: The assessee has urged other questions. He submits that the installation of cell-site towers did not amount to extension of existing business and the ITAT had disallowed the proportionate interest claimed, on account of Section 36(1)(iii) in the circumstances of the case. The Court is of the opinion that the assessee s argument that the improved efficiency within the circle if it was allowed fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lace material indicating whether the decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel was under challenge before any of the authorities but no such affidavit has been filed. In any case, in our considered view, Question B raised by the Appellant is a substantial question meriting consideration and the High Court ought to have admitted the appeal even with respect to Question B . The appeal is therefore allowed and the order passed by the High Court is modified to the effect that in addition to the questions framed by the High Court for its consideration, Question B shall also be considered by the High Court while considering Income Tax Appeal No.660 of 2018. We have considered the matter only from the perspective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
