9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t with the view taken by the Tribunal, having regard to the judgment of Coordinate Bench in Coforge Ltd s case [ 2021 (7) TMI 346 - DELHI HIGH COURT] . Disallowance of depreciation on account of energy saving and pollution control devices - HELD THAT:- According to us, the statutory conditions which are provided in Section 32 of the Act are such that they require the assessee claiming depreciation to establish that the concerned asset has been purchased by the assessee and the same has been put to use. The first aspect is not dispute. The other aspect, clearly, gets demonstrated, as the AO has not disputed the fact that the devices were installed. The level of performance of devices is not a measure based on which the AO could have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal was correct in sustaining the deletion of addition made on account of disallowance of license fee amounting to Rs. 1,17,83,98,395/-? (ii) Second, whether the Tribunal was right in sustaining the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, CIT(A) ] in reducing disallowance under Section 14A of the Act from Rs. 33,42,193/- to Rs. 20,13,989/-? (iii) Third, whether the Tribunal was right in sustaining the deletion made by CIT(A) concerning addition of Rs. 4,50,01,287/- made by the AO, on account of disallowance of depreciation on account of energy saving and pollution control devices? 3. Mr Maratha does not dispute that the first issue is covered by the judgment of this Court dated 11.05.2011, rendered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the assessee had made suo moto disallowances in the years under appeal as under: 2010-11 Rs. 11,52,656/- 2011-12 Rs. 10,02,954/- 2012-13 Rs. 9,64,928/- 2013-14 Rs. 20,13,989/- 2014-15 Rs. 17,02,026/- 6.0.2 The above suo moto [sic: suo motu] disallowances were not commented upon by the Assessing Officer but were completely disregarded and no satisfaction for not accepting the suo moto disallowances was recorded by the AO. The Ld. AR has also submitted that the disallowances may be restricted to the suo moto [sic: suo motu] disallowance offered by the assessee company. Therefore, we sustain the disallowance u/s 14A, as offered by the assessee company for the previous years under appeal as under: 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons for such disallowances. The reasons cited are as under:- The submission made by the assessee only establishes the fact that assets have been purchased by it. Even the certificates issued describe the assets and the functions they are meant to perform. As per the provisions of the Act the depreciation is allowed only when two conditions namely (i) The ownership of the asset and (ii) The asset having been put to use for the purpose of business, are fulfilled. Then the depreciation is allowed at the rates prescribed in the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In this case the assessee has been able to establish the purchase of the assets. But it has not been able to establish that the assets have been put to use and they have been used for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an erroneous conclusion. 8.1 What is evident (something which even Mr Maratha does not dispute), is that the assets on which depreciation was being claimed were purchased by the respondent/assessee. The AO joined issue with regard to the performance of the assets i.e., whether or not they produced results which demonstrated that inter alia, pollution control had taken place. 8.2 According to us, the statutory conditions which are provided in Section 32 of the Act are such that they require the assessee claiming depreciation to establish that the concerned asset has been purchased by the assessee and the same has been put to use. 8.3 The first aspect is not dispute. The other aspect, clearly, gets demonstrated, as the AO has not di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
