Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 971 - AT - Income TaxAdditional depreciation - Held that:- First one is assessee’s agreement with the Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation. Page 2 specifically states that assessee’s scope of work includes mining of lignite and loading of consumer trucks there with after employing hydrolic excavator and other equipments. It is further supposed to remove over burden arising from the said activity. The assessee admittedly is reimbursed on tonnage basis. The fact however remains that this payment structure is not relevant s we are dealing with nature of assessee’s activity. This former agreement makes it clear that the assessee itself is engaged in mining activity so as to be called a producer of the ore in question. It is further revealed from assessee’s latter agreement with the Rajasthan Mines & Minerals that the situation is no different since the assessee has to excavate lignite ore after deploying all of its machinery. We therefore take into account all these contractual terms to observe that the assessee is itself engaged in mining activity rather than to be a labour contractor or a mere machines provider. Assessee is itself engaged in mining activity. We thus accept assessee’s former substantive ground to delete the impugned disallowance of additional depreciation claim. - Decided in favour of assessee Adhoc allocation of expenses between windmill and mining business - Held that:- We proceed in this backdrop to notice that the assessee has been maintaining separate books of its two businesses throughout as duly audited as per this statutory provisions. It has further entered into annual maintenance contract with the windmill installment companies so far as its former business is concerned. There is no evidence in the case file indicating that the assessee has either way diverted expenditure of one business towards the other one i.e. from windmill to mining and vice versa. The Assessing Officer rather appears to have adopted prorate turnover figures to arrive at the impugned allocation. We notice that such a course of action already stands reversed by various tribunal’s decisions. For instance, ACIT vs. P I Industries [2011 (12) TMI 604 - ITAT JODHPUR ] deleting similar allocation / apportionment of expenses made by the Assessing Officer in case of an entity having two businesses and one of them eligible for Section 80IA deduction. We adopt the same reasoning herein as well to reverse the impugned allocation in absence of any specific material.
|