Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 572 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - depreciation u/s.32(1) on expenditure was incurred towards export product development expenditure - HELD THAT:- If the AO allowed depreciation for the assessment year 2013-14 without due application of mind, the PCIT ought to have revised the order for the assessment year 2013-14. It may not be correct to say that the AO has not applied his mind for the assessment year 2013-14 in the proceeding for the assessment year 2014-15. The fact remains is that on identical expenditure the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s.37 and treated the same as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation. This order of AO attained finality. For the assessment year 2014-15 which is under consideration, the AO by following his own order allowed the claim of the assessee for depreciation at the rate of 25%. When the assessee incurred expenditure for creation of an intangible asset namely the brand name “Pantherkid”, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that such expenditure has to be treated as capital in nature. Therefore the assessee is entitled for depreciation u/s.32(1). This is one of the possible views taken by the Assessing Officer. PCIT is not justified in revising the order of the Assessing Officer in exercise of his power u/s.263. Exemption claimed U/s.2(14) - evidence for consumption of electricity - HELD THAT:- when the assessee establishes that land in question is agricultural land, electricity is obtained for agricultural purpose from TamilNadu Electricity Board, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there is no reason to doubt the nature of the land. Moreover under the SARFEASI Act, the property of the assessee was taken over by the bank and no useful purpose would be served in directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the matter. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has made through enquiry through the Inspector of Income Tax. It is not a case of non-enquiry as observed by the PCIT. AO has made thorough enquiry and bring on record the entire material facts. AO has also taken into consideration the valuation report obtained by the Syndicate Bank. Therefore this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has made a proper enquiry and has taken one of the possible views in the assessment order. Therefore, there is no justification in revising the order of the Assessing Officer by the PCIT. We are unable to uphold the impugned order of the PCIT. Accordingly the impugned order of the PCIT is set aside and the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
|