Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 649 - AT - Income TaxAllowability of Prior Period Expenses - PSU carrying on business of transmission,distribution and supply of electricity - Held that:- Though the principle of res judicata doesn’t apply in the income tax proceedings but where the same “fundamental aspect” permeates in different AY's and the assessee is consistent in its accounting policy,of accounting for the liabilities in the year in which it is crystallised, the Courts have held that the settled position should not be disturbed unless there are glaring changes in the facts and circumstances of the case or there are change in law which call for a fresh examination. - no additions - Decided in favor of assessee. Disallowance of depreciation on non-existing assets worth 115.21 Cr - Physical Verification of assets could not be done - Held that:- CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance done by AO of depreciation on the nonexisting assets of ₹ 115.21 Crore on grounds that assessee does not prepare the list of fixed assets on physical verification and if the assessee himself cannot find where the assets are located, then the question of putting them to use for business purposes doesn’t arise. - But as per the submissions of Ld. AR for earlier AY 2003-04, the same case with same facts was decided by Tribunal in favor of assessee, therefore following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench [2016 (9) TMI 399 - ITAT JAIPUR] there is no change in the facts and circumstances in the present case same is allowed in favor of assessee. Disallowance of depreciation u/s 32 r/w sec 43(1) - Contribution, grants and subsidies towards cost of capital assets - AO has disallowed the amount of ₹ 22,05,23,697/- as excess depreciation claimed by assessee on the grounds that as per section 32(1)(iii) read with section 43(1) and Explanation 10 contribution, grants and subsidies received for Capital Assets are to be reduced from the cost of capital assets and therefore AO recalculated the depreciation allowable to the assessee. - Held that:- the same issue has been decided against the assessee by Co-ordinate Bench [supra] therefore, following the decision of the Coordinate Bench referred supra,there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case - Decided against assessee. Applicability of MAT provisions u/s 115JB - Held That:- following the favorable decision of the Coordinate Bench,in assessee’s own case the provisions of section 115JB are held not applicable to the assessee in present case also and there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the present case nor in the legal position. - Decided in favor of assessee. Disallowance of provision for doubtful debts - Held That:- Unless and until, the accounting treatment in the books of accounts is clear and through which it can be demonstrated that the assessee company has actually write off the bad debts in its books of accounts, merely contending that the intention is to write off the bad debts would not be sufficient enough to claim a deduction under the provisions of the Act. - The provisions of section 36(1)(vii) read with explanation 1 are clearly attracted and the assessee has not able to demonstrate how the said provisions are not applicable in the instant case. - Decided against assessee.
|