TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of exemption under section 10 (38) - Held that:- In the assessment order it is observed that assessee had raised an alternative plea in respect of profit on sale of investments being exempt under section 10 (38) of the Act. In our considered opinion this ground now becomes in fructuous in view of Ground No. 1 which has been decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of depreciation - Held that:- As we compare the factual position prevalent during assessment year 2000-01 and 2001-02 based on which the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of depreciation, we observe that it was so decided because assessee failed to furnish relevant information before the Assessing Officer along with Audit Report. Facts of the present assessment year are different as Ld.AR sufficiently demonstrated that the details were very much available before Ld.AO and Assessing Officer has not taken any steps to verify the same.We therefore are inclined to set aside this issue to Ld. AO for proper verification of the details filed by assessee - ITA No. 5796/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 12-1-2018 - SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. Tarandeep, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment proceedings Ld.AO observed that assessee is engaged in the business of insurance, other than life insurance business. It was observed that insurance business of the assessee is primarily classified into 3 categories being fire insurance, marine insurance and miscellaneous insurance which covers vehicle insurance, medical insurance etc. Assessing officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) by making following additions: 1. profit on sale of investment- Rs.6,00,01,47,000/- 2. interest recognition on realisation- Rs.43,30,97,000/ 3. depreciation being disallowed- Rs.7,01,24,122/- 4. guesthouse expenses disallowed- Rs.33,77,79/- 5. disallowance under section 14 A Rs.7,01,22,000/- 6. addition to the book profit Rs.7,01,22,000/- 2.2 . Aggrieved by the assessment order passed, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treated as obiter since that was not in issue in the case before it. 48. The Court is, therefore, liable to subscribe to the submission of Mr.Manchanda that the Circular-No.518 has no application to the present case. The decision in J.K. Synthetics v. CBDT (supra) relied upon by him has no application to the facts of the case. Furthermore, it is not even the case of the Revenue that the said Circular is ultra vires of the Act. 49. The question framed in ITA no.372 of 2015 is accordingly answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, by holding that the ITAT erred in holding that the income earned on sale/redemption of investment was chargeable to tax. 4.4 . On the basis of the above discussions we do not find any reason to deviate from view taken by Hon ble High Court as assessee had taken identical plea regarding profit on sale of investment being exempt as the same is not covered by section 44 of the Income Tax Act. Further it is observed from the assessment order that assessee has been consistently crediting the profit on sale of investment to general reserve and the change in its treatment was made only due to the change being ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assets, it is obligatory on its part to give all the details of such assets added, to the AO so that he may scrutinize them and allow depreciation as per the provisions of law. The assessee has not given the basic details, therefore, the question of allowing any depreciation on such assets cannot be accepted. We endorse the findings of the CIT(A), having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 6.3 . Ld. counsel adverting to the facts in the present case submitted that admittedly for the year under consideration assessee has submitted all the relevant information in respect of the assets for which depreciation has been claimed which is evident from the observations made by Ld.AO in paragraph 4.3 of his order. For the sake of convenience the same is reproduced hereunder: 4.3. Subsequently during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has submitted the details of auditor s report indicating the use of assets for more than 180 days and less than 180 days in the prescribed proforma. Furthermore, during the course of hearing the assessee has given the complete details as per the requirement of column no.14(d) of the Tax Audit Report (TAR) in respect of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
