Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 370 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IA - Revenue’s contention is that the assessee is only an advertising firm putting banner for their own purpose and, therefore, the question of claiming of any deduction under section 80IA of the Act would not arise - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has clearly held that the assessee is engaged in infrastructure development which involves construction of foot over bridge as well as the bus shelter and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80IA - Tribunal followed the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-IV, Kolkata vs. Selvel Advertising Pvt. Ltd [2010 (4) TMI 1074 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] which was also a similar matter wherein an advertising company engaged in infrastructure development has erected automatic traffic signal and pedestrian foot over bridge and the question was whether this would constitute infrastructure development as contemplated in clause [a] of the Explanation to subsection [4] of section 80IA of the Act. The Division Bench by the said judgement had upheld the decision rendered by the Tribunal and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. This decision has attained finality. Therefore, we are of the view that the decision of the Tribunal in so far as the claim of deduction made by the assessee under section 80IA of the Act requires to be sustained. Accordingly, substantial questions of law nos.1 to 4 are answered against the Revenue. Depreciation on asset put to use less than 180 Days - Whether Tribunal erred in allowing 100% depreciation in hoardings which have been put to use for less than 180 days in place of 50% as per section 32 [1] ? - HELD THAT:- As in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005-06, the decision was rendered in favour of the assessee and though the Revenue has filed appeal before this Court in [2009 (12) TMI 1044 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] but this was not one of the substantial questions of law, which has been admitted for consideration. Thus it goes without saying that the decision in respect of the substantial question of law no.5 has been accepted by the Revenue. Accordingly, the said question is also decided against the Revenue. Depreciation on hoardings - allowing depreciation @ 100% on hoardings treated as temporary structures as against the treatment given by the Assessing Officer as plant and machinery allowing depreciation at 15%? - HELD THAT:- The question is covered by the decision of the assessee’s own case in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-IV vs. Vantage Advertising Pvt. Ltd., [2019 (7) TMI 1888 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] following the same substantial questions of law was decided against the Revenue. In the result, the appeal fails and dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue.
|