9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and is determinable as a percentage of the fixed capital investment. In the computation of income filed along with the return of income, the amount of subsidy availed by the company during the year under consideration has been treated as capital subsidy and consequently reduced from the taxable income. The stand of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that on similar facts, assessee's claim for A.Y. 1994- 95 to 2001-02, has been allowed by the ITAT. The Assessing Officer, however, disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the department had not accepted the claim of the assessee and the matter was subjudice before the High Court. In appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by placing reliance on earlier orders of the ITAT in assessee's own case as also the orders of CIT(A) in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2002-03 to 2004-05. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 2.2. After hearing both sides we find that the issue stands already concluded against the department by the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal in assessee's own case. We also find that the issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee claimed depreciation in respect of the amounts paid by the assessee company to U.P. State Electricity Board for long power lines and installing of sub-station. The ownership of the power lines and the sub-station always vested with U.P. State Electricity Board and the assessee was not the owner. The assessee had ready claimed the payment as a revenue expenditure on the ground that the assessee had not acquired any property. Therefore, question of allowing any depreciation in respect of the same expenditure cannot arise. The facts in this year being identical to the facts that were considered by the Tribunal in earlier years, respectfully following the ratio laid down in earlier years, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on the issue in question. 6. Ground no. 2: Ground no. 2 in assessee's appeal relates to action of the AO in reducing a sum of ₹ 1,72,82,880/- on account of synchronization charges from the profits for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 80-IA even though the said liability had not been crystallized and the amounts in question have not been debited to the P L A/c. 6.1. The facts are that U.P. Power Corporation had levied certain synchronization cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ges from the profits of the eligible units for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not debited synchronization charges to the P L A/c on the ground that it was not ascertained liability. It was submitted that in case synchronization charges were to e reduced from the profits of the eligible unit, the same would have been debited to the P L A/c and such would have to be reworked accordingly. This aspect has been correctly appreciated by the CIT(A) and the AO was directed to verify the factum of debit to the P L A/c. In our view the direction given by the learned CIT(A) is fair and reasonable and does not call for any interference. . 7. Ground no. 3: This ground relates to the addition of ₹ 2,17,512/- on account of provision of doubtful debts for computing book profit of the purpose of MAT. 7.1. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that issue n question is squarely covered in favour o the assessee by the earlier decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case. In support he placed a copy of Tribunal's consolidated order dated 17-11-2008 in ITA nos. 3280, 3281/Del/05 and 2893/Del/07 for A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. (2008) 21 SOT 101 (Mum.). 8.2. After hearing both the parties we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on the issue in question. In taking this view we may mention that we have followed the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd. (supra). 9. Ground no. 5: Ground no. 5 in assessee's appeal relates to the direction of the CIT(A) to reduce the cost of acquisition of the assets in terms of the provisions of Explanation (1) to Section 43(6) of the I.T. Act. 9.1. The learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that identical issue came up for consideration before the Visakhapatnam Bench of the ITAT in the case of Sasisri Extractions Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2008) 307 ITR 127 (AT). The Tribunal in that case followed the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) for accepting the similar claim of the assessee. 9.2. The learned DR on the other hand, strongly relied upon Explanation (10) to section 43(1) of the I.T. Act, inserted w.e.f. 1-4-1999, reads as under: Explanation 10 - Where a portion of the cost of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
