9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act') at Rs. Nil after set off of brought forward losses of earlier years. The book profit u/s 115JB of the Act was declared at Rs. 1,25,90,89,126/- with the total tax liability of Rs. 14,12,69,800/- which was adjusted against TDS amount of Rs. 27,40,39,959/- thereby seeking refund of Rs. 13,27,70,159/-. 2.1 Subsequently, the return of was revised declaring total income at Rs. NIL under normal provisions of the Act and a book profit of Rs. 1,25,58,42,049/- u/s 115JB with a MAT liability of 14,00,54,479/- and thereby claiming a refund of Rs. 17,69,72,954/-. 2.2 The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act computing the income at Rs. 38,74,93,520/- under the normal provisions of the Act and a book profit of Rs. 1,64,65,82,376/- u/s 115JB of the Act. 2.3 Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to the notice, the assessee submitted that the revised return filed by it may be treated as the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee asked for the reasons for reopening which were duly made available to the assessee. The assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erent as compared to A.Y.2003-04. 2. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal." Grounds of appeal in Cross Object No.95/Del/2015- 1) Both in the facts and law the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 and accordingly notice issued u/s 148 dated 30.03.2012 is wrong and bad in law. The re-opening is to be annulled as there is no failure on the part of the Appellant Corporation in disclosing the full material. 2) It is contended that the CIT (Appeals) had erred in enhancing a sum of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- without appreciating the facts of the case. 3) It is contended that the Corporation is entitle to depreciation of Rs. 50,00,00,000/- being the license fee for the period of 20 years. 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that ground No.1 of the assessee's Cross Objection challenged the reopening. It was submitted that this ground was not being pressed. Accordingly ground No.1 of assessee's Cross Objection is dismissed as not pressed. 3.1 The Ld. Authorized Representative further submitted that ground No.3 of the assessee's Cross Objection prayed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Ld. CIT (A) and vehemently argued that the amortization had been rightly granted and that the assessee was not eligible for depreciation. 5.0 With respect to the Department's appeal challenging the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,00,49,000/- on account of claim against Contractors, the Ld. SR. DR again placed reliance on the findings and observations of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) was incorrect in deleting the addition by following the order of his predecessor in Assessment Year 2003-04. 6.0 In response, the Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) had been correct in deleting the addition in as much as the assessee company had made full disclosure regarding the issue in its printed accounts under the head 'notes on accounts' which was a part of the assessment records. It was submitted that the assessee had not accounted the claim against contractors/parties amounting to Rs. 300.49 lacs pending its realization due to uncertainty in realization of this amount because they were being disputed by the parties and the recovery was highly doubtful even if the claim was settled in favour of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... countant of India. In the proceedings before us, the Ld. SR. DR could not bring to our notice any perversity in the said order of the Ld. CIT (A). We also note that a similar issue had been decided in favour of the assessee by the Ld. CIT (A) in Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05 which have been accepted by the Department. Therefore, in such a situation, following the principle of consistency, we find no reason to deviate from the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue. Accordingly, we dismiss ground No.1 of the Department Appeal. 7.2 Ground No.2 of the Department's appeal is general in nature not requiring any separate adjudication. 7.3 In the result, the appeal of Department stands dismissed. 8.0 Coming to the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, Ground No.1 is being dismissed as not pressed. 8.1 Ground Nos. 2 & 3 of the assessee's Cross Objection are linked and challenge the action of the Lower Authorities in treating the license fee paid to Indian Railways as deferred revenue expenditure eligible for amortization over a period of 20 years but not being eligible for depreciation. In this regard, it has been brought to our notice that an identical issue had been decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
