Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 226 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - Dolphin Drilling PTE Limited is not the owner of Belford Dolphin, in view of the document dated 04.05.2003, thus depreciation wrongly claimed - Held that:- Assessee has claimed depreciation of ₹ 3,05,73,40,212/- and declared loss of ₹ 99,30,56,370/-, during the course of the assessment proceedings of Assessment Year 2004-05, which was accepted by the Appellate Authority. Order further reveals that A.O. has estimated the cost of drillship at 130 million dollars instead of 260 million dollars, as on 09.10.2003, that is the day, when drillship was sold in India and depreciation has been computed as per Annexure No. “A” of the assessment order. Appellate Authority has further held that the actual cost of the drillship to the assessee is what has been claimed by it before A.O. The assessee has duly furnished form 3CEB which is a report under Section 92E of the Income Tax Act, alongwith its return of income before the A.O. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of C.I.T. (A) for allowing the claim of depreciation. Respectfully, following the above decision of Hon’ble I.T.A.T for earlier Assessment Year 2004-2005, I also hold that appellant has rightly declared the cost of acquisition of the drillship at U.S. $ 270 million as on 09.10.1993 and accordingly the depreciation should be allowed for the instant year. Since, question of ownership and depreciation thereon was accepted twice by the C.I.T (A) in Assessment Year 2004-05 and 2005-06, therefore, same cannot be allowed to be reopened in the garb of reassessment. Assessee has claimed credit of T.D.S without offering the income for taxation - Held that:- Order passed by the appellate authority would further reveal that AO has not drawn any adverse inference about the declaration of such revenues in P&L Account vis-ŕ-vis the TDS certificates claimed in the return of income. Judgment further reveals that both these points were assailed before the Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-1 by the Revenue. Further contention of Revenue was repealed and was not accepted by the Appellate Authority.Impugned notices for re-assessment are hereby quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.
|