9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1085X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Such an amount can be treated as a perquisite in the hands of the employees - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s.80IA(4) - As per AO Assessee had claimed deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iii) of the Act without complying with the provisions of the Act and Income Tax Rules - HELD THAT:- This issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the order of Pune Bench of the Tribunal [ 2018 (8) TMI 1993 - ITAT PUNE] wherein placing reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Paul Brothers [ 1992 (10) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein held unless the relief claimed in the first year of undertaking is withdrawn, the AO cannot withhold the relief for the subsequent years. As claim is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt order u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act‟) was passed on 30.12.2016 at the total income of ₹ 5,82,73,571/- after making certain additions/disallowances. 3. Ground No.1 pertains to confirmation of disallowance by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) on account of depreciation claimed on motor vehicles of ₹ 10,12,764/-. 4. The Assessing Officer has discussed this issue at Para 3 of his order. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was on the fact that he is of the opinion the ownership of the asset is the mandatory compliance of the provisions u/s.32 of the Act for claim of the depreciation allowance. In this case vehicles were purchased in the name of the directors of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of personal use by the director. It has been further held that no disallowance can be made even by treating such expenditure as not having been incurred for the business purpose. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in several cases including Dy. CIT vs. Haryana Oxygen Ltd. (2001) 76 ITD 32 (Del). Thus it is evident that there can be no disallowance on account of personal use by the director-employees of the assessee. Such an amount can be treated as a perquisite in the hands of the employees. In view of the above decisions, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the disallowance to this extent. The addition is deleted. Respectfully following our decision in assessee‟s own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment years 2010-11 2011-12 dated 24.08.2018 wherein placing reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Paul Brothers reported in 216 ITR 548, the Tribunal held as follows: 6. We heard both the parties on this legal issue of applicability of the ratio of the binding judgment of Honble Jurisdiction High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Paul Brothers (supra). The said judgment is relevant for the following proposition: 6. Either in section 80HH or in section 80J, there is no provision for withdrawal of special deduction for the subsequent years for breach of certain conditions. Hence unless the relief granted for the assessment year 1980-81 was withdrawn, the Income-tax Officer cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether SEEPZ unit was set up/formed by splitting up of the first unit. In both the above decisions, this Court has held that where a benefit of deduction is available for a particular number of years on satisfaction of certain conditions under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, then unless relief granted for the first assessment year in which the claim was made and accepted is withdrawn or set aside, the Income Tax officer cannot withdraw the relief for subsequent years. More particularly so, when the revenue has not even suggested that there was any change in the facts warranting a different view for subsequent years. In this case for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 the relief granted under Section 10A of the Act to SEEPZ unit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment order for the said assessment year, however, the assessee has furnished a copy of assessment order for assessment year 2004-05. A perusal of the said assessment order at pages 30 to 40 of the paper book clearly indicate that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 10A in respect of profits from STPI unit and the same has been allowed by the Assessing Officer in scrutiny assessment. Once having accepted the claim of assessee, the Revenue cannot question assessee's eligibility for claiming such deduction in subsequent assessment years. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Paul Brothers (supra) has observed that there is no provision for withdrawal of special deduction for the subseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
