9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -M/s Verdhman Textiles Ltd. has been accepted and order dated 26.11.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ludhiana relating to the assessment year 2007-2008 has been set aside. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its original return of income for the assessment year 2007-2008 on 31.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs. 1,36,28,61,170/-. Later on, the assessee filed its revised return on 25.03.2009 declaring income of Rs. 1,37,10,52,040/-. Assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act was completed vide order dated 30.12.2009. However, the Assessing Officer, after recording the reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, issued notice to the assessee under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod of four years of the original assessment and hence, the same was upheld. The CIT (A) also upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in holding the expenditure to be a capital expenditure as the assessee's contention that ownership of the assets created vested with MPEB, was not supported by any evidence and even otherwise the assessee was having sole and exclusive rights over the aforesaid bay lines. A reference was made to Explaination I to Section 32 of the Act in connection with allowance of depreciation of capital expenditure incurred on leased building and following the said explanation, it was held by CIT(A) that even where there was no ownership of an asset, the assessee could be deemed to be owner of such assets for the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... framing the assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act, had allowed the claim of the assessee. However, the reason for reopening the assessment vide order dated 09.08.2010, is that this expenditure is capital in nature and the payment was taken to be as income, which had escaped the assessment. The Tribunal further observed that for the assessment year 1992-1993, this payment made to Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (MEPB) was allowed by the CIT (A) and against the said order, no appeal had been filed by the Revenue. Even with respect to the assessment year 2004-2005, appeal of the assessee with respect to the similar claim was allowed. This income had been disclosed by the assessee while filing the return and even in respect of the pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
