9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see allocated higher value to building and lower value to leasehold land. But there is no justification for the same given by the assessee The CIT(A) has given a detailed finding and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Addition on account of provision of expenses - Assessee has paid State Advised Price (SAP) of ₹ 18.64 crores as per the Court order. The CIT(A) has rightly held that the same has to be allowed as a deduction during the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, the CIT(A) rightly directed the AO to verify whether this amount has been claimed during the assessment year 2013-14 and if not AO was directed to allow its deduction in the present assessment year. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) Addition made u/s 43B on account of interest on levy of sugar price for the season 1982-83 - HELD THAT:- Since the Supreme Court order came in 2012, the claim is admissible in the Assessment Year under consideration as the same was a liability in A.Y. 2008-09. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Ground No. 2 of Revenue s appeal is dismissed CIT-A allowing the deprec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the return of income. 3.2 Because learned AO erred on facts and in law by refusing to accept the claim for Additional Depreciation on certain items of fixed assets used in the units of the company as per provisions of Section 32(l)(iia)of the Income Tax Act ., is concerned the learned CIT(A) has i. failed to adjudicate on the appellant's submissions that the allowability of depreciation at 5% on the cost of alleged residential buildings by the AO is not correct since all the buildings are factory buildings as contradistinguished from residential buildings, and ii has also failed to adjudicate upon the appellant's submissions that the appellant is entitled to 100% depreciation on Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) valued at ₹ 27,38,162/- instead of depreciation @ 15% allowed by the AO. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as far as Ground of Appeal no. 5 which reads as:- ADDITION OF DHARMADA RECEIPTS ₹ 12,14,932/- AND INTEREST EARNED ON ACCUMULATED DHARMADA FUNDS LYING IN BANK- ₹ 5,34,843/- -TOTAL ADDITION ₹ 17,49,775/- Because learned AO has erred on facts and in law in making addition of Dharmamda re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the business of manufacturing and sale of crystal sugar and Alcoholic products in its two sugar units (Shamly and Unn) and two distillery units (Shamly and Pilkhani). The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had made provision for expenses of ₹ 20,78,25,963/- in the Financial Year 2007-08 as compare to ₹ 31,56,731/- during the Financial Year 2006-07. Therefore, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to justify its claim of provision of expenses of ₹ 20,78,25,963/- and to explain why the same should not be treated as contingent liability. The return of income for the Assessment Year 2008-09 was filed on 29/9/2008 declaring total loss at ₹ 57,06,38,617/-. The assessee filed revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Income Tax Act on 6/10/2008 declaring total loss at ₹ 56,59,50,142/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 20,59,20,430/- towards provisions of expenses and disallowed the same. The Assessing Officer also made addition of ₹ 13,31,638/- on account of interest payable on SDF term loan but which was not paid u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Office made addition of ₹ 17,49,775/- and treated the same as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the basis on which the same was given. It was further pointed out that fixed assets had been valued by the assessee and alleged that the assessee had inflated the values assign to fix assets in such a way that it could claim higher depreciation on certain fixed assets. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of Explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the Act as the Assessing Officer was satisfied that the main purpose of transfer of such assets was for reducing the tax liability by the assessee by claiming depreciation with reference to enhanced cost. The Assessing Officer mentioned in the assessment order that the Assessing Officer obtained the approval of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range (vi), New Delhi before invoking the said provision and recomputation of value of fixed assets. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition is not warranted and the same may be deleted. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is to be noted that the assessee has paid ₹ 100,30,95 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim of depreciation at 5% in respect of the premises used for residential purpose by the assessee. 9. The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 10. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. As regards Ground No. 1 of the Revenue s appeal, it is seen that the assessee has paid State Advised Price (SAP) of ₹ 18.64 crores as per the Court order. The CIT(A) has rightly held that the same has to be allowed as a deduction during the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, the CIT(A) rightly directed the AO to verify whether this amount has been claimed during the assessment year 2013-14 and if not AO was directed to allow its deduction in the present assessment year. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Ground No. 1 of Revenue s appeal is dismissed. As regards Ground No. 2, it is pertinent to note that since the Supreme Court order came in 2012, the claim is admissible in the Assessment Year under consideration as the same was a liability in A.Y. 2008-09. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Ground No. 2 of Revenue s appeal is dismissed. As regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
