Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 94 - AT - Income TaxDepreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) in respect of its “right to collect toll” - whether or not the assessee’s claim for depreciation on “license to collect toll”, an intangible asset, falls within the scope of Sec.32(1)(ii) ? - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that the issue as to whether an Infrastructure Development company that had constructed a road on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis on the land owned by the Central Government would be eligible for claim of depreciation in respect of its intangible rights i.e “right to collect toll” under Sec. 32(1)(ii) - See Progressive Construction Ltd. [2017 (3) TMI 1167 - ITAT HYDERABAD] and also M/s Atlanta Ltd. Mumbai [2018 (2) TMI 1514 - ITAT MUMBAI], ACIT Vs. M/s PNG Tata Ltd. [2019 (8) TMI 347 - ITAT CHENNAI] AND M/s Essel Sagar Damoh Toll Roads Ltd [2019 (9) TMI 1545 - ITAT MUMBAI] We, thus, finding ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the claim of the assessee towards depreciation under Sec.32(1)(ii) in respect of its intangible rights i.e “right to collect toll” being in conformity with the mandate of law is found to be in order. We thus not finding favour with the view taken by the CIT(A) therein set-aside the same. Levy of interest u/s 234B - HELD THAT:- As the levy of interest is mandatory as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anju M.H. Ghaswala [2001 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] therefore, the same being consequential, the A.O is directed to recompute the same while giving effect to our aforesaid order. Ad hoc disallowance on account of motor car expenses - HELD THAT:- As the view taken by the CIT-10, Mumbai in his order passed u/s 263 that the assessee had not claimed depreciation on the Honda CRV vehicle that was purchased by it in A.Y 2004-05 is found to be incorrect, therefore, the very assumption drawn by him that the said vehicle was not used by the assessee for its business purposes falls to ground and cannot be sustained. As the assessee had duly claimed depreciation as regards the vehicle in question i.e Honda CRV both in the year of purchase i.e A.Y 2004-05 and the year in question which had been allowed by the department, thus, it can safely or in fact inescapably be concluded that the said vehicle was used by the assessee for its business purpose. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A) who in our considered view had rightly vacated the ad hoc disallowance of motor vehicle expenses.
|