Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 453 - AT - Income Tax'Provisions for accrued Expenses' - ascertained liabilities OR contingent liabilities - HELD THAT:- Except electricity charges and payment for other charges, the provision under liability towards payment to contractors is also lesser and in comparison to provision. Thus, the AO is also directed to examine that what treatment has been given to this excess amount of provision by the assessee. With these directions, the issue of provision towards payment to contractors is restored to the file of the AO for verification and examination. In the chart showing provision and another chart showing actual payments, we also note that the assessee has made provision towards interest on Government in India, loan & interest on initial investment of Government of India loan but in the actual payment table, these two items are missing and there is no details available on the record about actual payment by the assessee on these two heads. Thus, these two issues ae also restored to the file of the AO to examine and verify the actual amount of expenditure and treatment of excess amount of provision, if any, by the assessee in the books of account. Accordingly, this ground of revenue for A.Y. 2013-14 is restored to the file of the AO and thus allowed for statistical purposes. Accrued interest on investment Replacement, Rehabilitation, Modernisation of Capital Assets Fund - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08 [2011 (3) TMI 1797 - ITAT CUTTACK]which has been followed by the ld CIT(A) in the impugned order. CIT(A) has relied on the judgment of Sitaldas Tirathdas [1960 (11) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT] wherein, it is held that in deciding on the issue of diversion of income, it is the nature of obligation which is the decision fact and where by virtue of obligation, the income never reaches the assessee, same cannot be brought to tax. Further, ld D.R. has not brought on record any order of the higher forum that the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08 (supra) has been reversed. - Decided against revenue. Depreciation @ 15% on "railways and rolling stock" treating the same as "Plant & Machinery" - whether such items should be covered under the head "Buildings" other than those used mainly for residential purpose" entitling them to depreciation @ 10% as per Rule-5 of I. T. Rules & New Appendixl( Note-1). - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has allowed the depreciation @ 15% following the decision of this Bench in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 [2011 (3) TMI 1797 - ITAT CUTTACK] wherein, the Tribunal has followed the decision of CIT vs Dr. B.Ventatrao, [1999 (2) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT]. No other decision was placed on record by ld D.R. to take a contrary view than the view taken by ITAT in assessee’s own case (supra). Hence, we are inclined to uphold the order of the ld CIT(A) and dismiss Ground of the revenue.
|