9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... system - HELD THAT:- Assessee debited the development charge and also the contra entry was passed and treated the amount as the liability. The assessee is bound to pay the amount as per the agreement. After the settlement of dispute, the amount should be paid to the said authority. We respectfully relied on the order of Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P.) Ltd [ 2002 (8) TMI 26 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] The said expenses is allowable. The addition made by the ld. AO is quashed. Deduction u/s 80IA - admission of additional evidences - CIT(A) restricting the deduction u/s 80IA to Zero on the pretext that there was loss from business or profession for which application for admitting additional ground was raised before the CIT(A) - H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred in not allowing deduction u/s 80IA claimed at Rs. 66,97,408/- for which application for admitting additional ground was raised before the ld.CIT(A). The Id. CIT(A) has erred in not considering such ground of appeal raised in appeal. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the deduction u/s 80IA to Zero on the pretext that there was loss from business or profession for which application for admitting additional ground was raised before the ld.CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering such ground of appeal raised in appeal. 5. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honours. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omewhere for dumping elsewhere would come within expression 'earthmoving machinery', and are not road transport vehicle -Held, yes. Further, the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs Sardar Stones reported in [1995] 215 ITR 350 (Rajasthan) has held that 'whether business of running of vehicle on hire is different from giving vehicle on hire casually - Held, yes'. Similarly, the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs AR Enterprises P. Ltd. has held that tippers dumpers are not transport vehicle rather they are construction equipment under Plant Machinery. 6.3 Therefore, respectfully following the above decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati and the jurisdictional High Court of Rajasthan, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovided under the Head-III machinery and plant, wherein cl. (ii) of Entry No. 111(3) deals with the motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxies, while cl. 3(iii) concerns with commercial vehicles. As such, if the vehicles in question are not held to be falling in sub-cl. (ii) of cl. (3), they would well fall in sub-cl. (iii) of the cl. 3 of Entry No. III of Appendix-1, entailing even higher rate of depreciation to the assessee. 11. The expression used in sub-cl. (ii), namely motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxies is having wide amplitude and the term motor lorries used therein, would take in its sweep the subject vehicles, i.e., dumper and Volvo. 12. In view of the above discussion and in view of the finding as recorded by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be proper and genuine. Any expenditure can be claimed as deduction only when it is actually paid. Since the appellant has paid the development cost to UIT, Udaipur during the year under consideration, the disallowance of the same by the AO is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 4.6 The ld. AR further relied on the order of Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, [2003] 129 Taxman 728 (Rajasthan) 6. It has also been brought to our notice that even in the year 1993- 94 though the actual expenditure has been made, but that has been denied on the ground that CIT(A) has allowed this expenditure in the year 1991-9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submit any contrary judgment against the submission of the assessee. 6. We heard the rival submission and consider the documents available in the record. The ground no. 1 related to claim of depreciation @ 30% is duly covered by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Jodhpur and the order of the Hon ble High Court in the case of Amar Singh Bhandari (supra). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and quash the addition amount of Rs. 1,33,697/- related to rejection of depreciation by the ld. AO. Ground No. 2 6.1 Related to ground no. 2, the assessee is maintaining the mercantile system. Assessee debited the development charge and also the contra entry was passed and treated the amount as the liability. The assessee is bound ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
