Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 433 - ITAT HYDERABADClaim of deduction u/s 80IB(11A) – Business of taking godowns on lease and letting them - determination of initial year - AO noted that the other condition u/s 80IB(11A) that the eligible unit must start its functions on or after 01/04/2001 - the period of five years was sought to be counted from the year of incorporation of the assessee, viz. 1958 - Held that:- Following the decision in AP. State Warehousing Corporation, Hyderabad Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 1(1), Hyderabad [2014 (5) TMI 730 - ITAT HYDERABAD] - There was no merit in the reasons of the lower authorities for making the disallowance - the assessee-corporation owns premises accommodating godowns at different places all over the State - each unit is an undertaking because food-grains are stored and handled and transported thereto and therefrom - there is no restriction in section 80-IB that an existing business unit cannot set up new undertakings to carry on the integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food grains - The godowns where this business is to be carried on need not be owned by the assessee - When the assessee-corporation has set up these godowns in as many as in 73 towns and at different places in those towns, it is entitled for relief u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act in respect of each such new undertaking set up by it. The assessee had collected rentals for storing food grains and had engaged outsiders to transport the food grains - the assessee had been carrying on similar business would not disentitle the assessee from claiming relief u/s 80IB(11A) - deduction under Chap VIA, in respect of new undertakings set up by the assessee by way of expansion of the existing undertakings – Relying upon as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd v CIT [1977 (1) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] – thus, the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB(11A), in respect of income derived from the new undertakings, warehouses, set up and operated from 1.4.2001 for storage, handling and transportation of food grains – the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the AO for verifying the claim of the assessee - Decided in favour of Assessee. Claim of deduction of deferred revenue expenditure – Held that:- Assessee from the earlier assessment years has been following the same method of accounting in respect of expenditure incurred for LDP covers by claiming the actual expenditure incurred - the CIT(A) has dismissed the ground raised by the assessee merely because the assessee has not referred to it in the written submissions filed before her - fact remains the assessee did raise a specific ground on the issue of disallowance of deduction claimed towards purchase of LDP covers – thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for verification – Decided in favour of assessee. Depreciation on wooden carts – Held that:- CIT(A) rightly followed the decision as delivered in assessee’s own case in AP State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad [2011 (7) TMI 578 - ITAT, HYDERABAD] - The only ground on which the department has sought to challenge the decision of the CIT(A) is, against the order passed by the Tribunal an appeal has been preferred by the Department before the Hon'ble High Court - filing of an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court against the order of the Tribunal by itself would not make the Tribunal's order either ineffective or inoperative unless it is set aside or reversed by the Hon'ble high Court – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue.
|