Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1298 - AT - Income TaxLate deposit of employer’s contribution to PF - entitlement to any deduction under section 43B(b) read with section 36(1)(va) and 2(24)(x) denied - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The record shows that the employer’s contribution to PF has been deposited by the assessee with a delay of 1 to 3 days, which certainly fall within the statutory grace period of five days. The stand of the Assessing Officer is, therefore, not sustainable because five days grace period has been allowed to the employer’s for payment of provident fund contributions under clause (iii) of CPFC’s Circular No. E. 128(1) 60-III dated 19.03.1964 as modified by circular No. E11/128 (section 14-B Amendment)/73 dated 24.10.1973. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has quoted the provisions of section 36(1)(va) and section 2(24)(x) of the Act which deal with the employees contribution to PF and not the employer’s contribution. We, therefore, find no material on record to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of depreciation on various assets at various rates - Held that:- As regards the depreciation on Cylinder, valves & regulators, the learned CIT(A) has allowed depreciation @ 80% in respect of gas cylinders including valves and regulators. He observed that the assessee had claimed depreciation on CO2 gas plant and has not restricted it to the cylinders valves and regulators. While allowing depreciation on these assets, the ld. CIT(A) has considered clause (x) of sub-clause (viii) of clause (3) )Part A. The learned DR could not be able to rebut the findings reached by the learned CIT(A) in the impugned order. We, therefore, find no material on record to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) on this count. As far as the depreciation on water treatment plant is concerned, the AO restricted the depreciation to 25% observing that the rate claimed by assessee is applicable in the case of effluent Treatment Plant and the assessee is not an infrastructure company u/s. 80IA. The learned CIT(A) has examined the issue in detail and allowed depreciation on this asset at the rate of 80% after considering the note No. 4 given below the depreciation chart in the Rules and has categorically observed that water treatment plant refers to Effluent treatment plant only. This finding of the learned CIT(A) does not stand rebutted on behalf of the Revenue before us. We, therefore, do not find any good reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this account also. In respect of depreciation on Racks, Bins & Trolleys, CIT(A) allowed depreciation @ 25% on these assets after considering the contention of assessee that the racks are placed in the workshop to place the WIP components and bins and trolleys are meant for movement of components inside and outside the workshop. These assets are used in a very rough manner, thus rightly allowed depreciation on these assets at the rate of 25% as against 15% allowed by the AO, particularly when the assessee has been claiming the same rate of depreciation under the category of plant & machinery since inception and there has been no litigation on this point in the history of the assessee. We, therefore, do not find any material to support the conclusion arrived at by the Assessing Officer and to interfere with the impugned order on this count. AO had restricted the depreciation to 25% as against 100% claimed by the assessee on sewage treatment plant for the reason that some of the bills as mentioned in the impugned order were not available. The learned CIT(A) allowed the depreciation at the rate of 100% on these assets observing that the deficit bills are available, for submission of which the AO did not give reasonable opportunity to the assessee. No contrary evidence could be adduced on behalf of the revenue to contradict the finding of fact recorded by the learned CIT(A). We, therefore, endorse the view expressed by the ld. CIT(A) on this account. As regards the depreciation on LPG gas plant including cylinders, valves & regulators in Speedomax Unit, the learned CIT(A) allowed depreciation @ 80% for the reason that the assessee has not restricted the depreciation on Cylinders, Valves and regulars, but has claimed depreciation on LPG gas plant. While doing so, the ld. CIT(A) appears to have accepted the contention of the assessee that the LPG gas plant is nothing but a plant to regulate the functioning of gas cylinders and therefore, such LPG gas plant is covered in sub-clause (x) of sub-clause 8 of Item III (Part A) which consists of gas cylinders including valves and regulators. The learned DR failed to place any contrary material before us to contradict the findings of the learned CIT(A) that the assessee has claimed depreciation on LPG Gas Plant and has not restricted it to the cylinders, valves and regulators. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be supported. - Decided against revenue.
|