Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1133 - ITAT BANGALOREDepreciation on DG Sets, transformers, photocopier system and security camera - Held that:- The Clause 3(c) of the Agreement mandates the assessee to furnish various facilities and clause 3(f) specifics the consideration for such facilities. In this case, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Agreement between the owner of the property and the user (tenant). The assessee was supposed to provide services like lift, transformer, DG sets which require employment of personnel to discharge such responsibility. The various arrangements that the assessee has to make on a day to day basis to ensure availability of services and amenities to the user (tenant) in accordance with the Agreement reflects a clear manifestation of organized activity and therefore the income appears to have been correctly computed. In our view, denying depreciation on lift is not justified while allowing depreciation for other assets used by the assessee for such activities. The learned CIT(A) has not given any convincing reasons but the fact remains that like any other items mentioned above, lift has also been used and it requires day-to-day maintenance and attendance. - Decided against revenue Disallowance of professional charges - non deduction of tds - Held that:- Services are definitely in the nature of business and it cannot be considered to be ‘income from other sources’. The sum referred to as administrative expenses is not the expenses debited to professional fee account. The assessee has credited the professional charges account with the above sum as some of these expenses were earlier debited to professional charges. The AO has completely misconstrued the credit entry as debit entry. The observations of the AO, being based on non-existing facts, are liable to be quashed. The AO’s observation that tax has not been deducted at source is not based on any evidence. Even assuming that tax has not been deducted at source, it cannot be a ground for disallowance as section 40(a)(ia) was introduced only with effect from assessment year 2005-06. The assessee cannot receive without incurring expenses. The assessee has engaged the services of professionals who have been paid for the services rendered by them.- Decided against revenue Interest towards the project development, property acquisition and also advances made to suppliers disallowed - Held that:- Where interest on borrowed funds are utilized towards other current assets and there is no finding that the loan has been taken for the specific construction activity, interest has to be allowed as a period cost and cannot he added to the cost of work in progress.- Decided against revenue Claim of the assessee for deduction of interest allowed Assessment u/s 153C - Held that:- With regard to the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the documents seized should prima facie show undisclosed income to invoke the provisions of section 153C of the Act, we are of the view that the same cannot be accepted. In this regard, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of SSP Aviation ltd. v. DCIT, (2012 (4) TMI 335 - DELHI HIGH COURT ), clearly lays down that at the time of arriving at a satisfaction for proceeding against the other person u/s. 153C of the Act, it is not necessary that satisfaction should be recorded that such article or documents found in the course of search showed undisclosed income. The next argument of the assessee that proceedings u/s. 153A r.w.s. 153C should not be initiated for all the six assessment years and it should be restricted only to the assessment years relating to the incriminating documents found at the time of search unable to appreciated for the simple reason that once the condition for invoking the provisions of section 153C are satisfied, then the AO has to proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act, which mandates the AO to pass an order of assessment for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made. The request of the ld. counsel for the assessee is that in the context of section 153C of the Act, provisions of section 153A should receive the restricted meaning. In our view, such a course is not possible. If, after analysis of seized document, the AO finds no income chargeable to tax for the six assessment years referred to in section 153A of the Act, then he has to pass NIL assessment. Hence, in our view, the assessee cannot have any grievance whatsoever. The other arguments which challenge to the validity of initiation of proceedings u/s.153C of the Act in relation to assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 are as follows. These arguments proceed on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Special Bench in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd vs. CIT, [2012 (7) TMI 222 - ITAT MUMBAI(SB)] wherein it was held that in respect of assessments that are completed prior to the date of search, than the assessment to be made u/s.153A/153C of the Act in respect of the 6 Assessment years covered u/s.153A/153C of the Act should be restricted to only assessing income that are not disclosed earlier and which are detected consequent to the material found in the course of search. In other words in respect of assessment that are abated, the AO retains the original jurisdiction as far as jurisdiction conferred on him under section 153A/153C of the Act of which the assessment shall be made for each of the six assessment years separately. For the purpose of Sec.153A/153C of the Act an intimation u/s.143(1) is also an order of assessment. We are therefore unable to accept the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the Assessee with reference to AY 05-06.
|