Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1909 - AT - Income TaxLiquidated damages paid towards incomplete contracts - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, on identical facts on the same issue, the Special Bench has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. During the appeal hearing, the AR argued that the liability regarding the liquidity damages arose by virtue of terms of contract between the assessee and the customer and the delay in supply would attract the damages and the liability is ascertainable each year and the assessee is required to make payment of damages to the contractee. Such liability is debited to the Profit & Loss account under the head ‘liquidity damages’. Since, the issue is settled in favour of the assessee by Special Bench and also by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the assessee’s own case, the assessee has requested to allow the same as deduction. On identical issue, for the A.Y.2010-11 . [2016 (9) TMI 1603 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] this Tribunal has deleted the addition and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Therefore, respectfully following the view taken by this Tribunal, Special Bench and Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue on this ground. Rental income and excess depreciation - CIT(A) given finding that the difference amount was offered as income from business in the Engineering Unit - HELD THAT:- From the above order of the Ld.CIT(A) and from the explanation of the assessee, it is found that the assessee had already admitted the rental income under the head ‘business’ in Engineering Unit and there was no difference. The department has not brought any material to controvert the finding of the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. The appeal of the revenue on this ground for the A.Y.2011-12 is dismissed. Depreciation @50% on cars stated to be for commercial use - HELD THAT:- For the A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11, the assessee had claimed the depreciation @50% and the AO allowed the depreciation as claimed by the assessee. In the instant assessment year, the AO restricted the depreciation holding that the cars are not put to commercial use. No evidence has been brought on record by the AO to establish that the cars were not being put to commercial use. During the appeal hearing also, no material was placed before the Tribunal to controvert the finding of the CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld.
|