Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1265 - ITAT DELHIDisallowance of additional depreciation - proof of manufacturing of an article or thing - as per AO activity of power generation cannot be considered as manufacturing of an article or thing, so as to be entitled for additional depreciation - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the ease of CST Vs. M.P. Electricity Board, [1968 (11) TMI 85 - SUPREME COURT] and in the case of State of AP & Ors. Vs. National Thermal Power Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. [2002 (4) TMI 694 - SUPREME COURT] has held that electricity is capable of abstraction, transmission, transfer, delivery, possession, consumption and use like any other movable property and thus qualifies to be ‘goods’. In view of the said decisions of the apex court, the coordinate bench of ITAT Delhi In appellant’s own case for the immediately preceding year [2012 (5) TMI 127 - ITAT DELHI] has also allowed the appellant’s claim of additional depreciation - Decided in favour of assessee. Taxability of Income Tax Recoverable from State Electricity Boards (SEBs) - amount ascertained at the time of filing of return of income or at the amount recorded in the books of accounts - HELD THAT:- The impugned addition made by the AO, with the view that, without incorporating the amount of tax liability in its Profit & Loss account, reduction of the taxable profit has been rightly allowed by the ld. CIT(A). Addition on account of Pre-Commissioning Sales - Revenue challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing capitalization of pre-commissioning expenses, after being netted off with pre-commissioning sales and deleting the addition made by the AO on account of pre-commissioning sales - HELD THAT:- Since, it has been consistently ruled in favour of the assessee by the Co-ordinate bench of Tribunal and Ld. CIT(A) since A.Y. 2003-04, and also accepted by the AO for all the subsequent years, we hereby decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Addition u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- Since, the facts of the assessee’s case are similar to the facts involved in the case of DCIT, Circle-14(1), New Delhi Vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. [2011 (10) TMI 724 - ITAT DELHI]. So, respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order dated 31.10.2011, we do not see any merit in this ground of the departmental appeal. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed. Addition on account of downward revision of Sales - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) on similar issue for A.Y. 2007-08 and A.Y. 2008-09 has deleted the addition made by the AO on account of downward revision of sales. Notably, even the department has accepted this position as no addition in this respect has ever been made in any year post A.Y. 2008-09. Deduction u/s 80IA –set off of losses - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue under consideration already stands settled in favor of the appellant by various judicial precedents upto the level of the apex court. Hence the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed. Disallowance in respect of Road, Rail connectivity - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) sustained the impugned addition holding that the Assessing Officer has very specifically observed that appellant has not furnished any details so as to establish its claim that expenditure was incurred as per business expediency of the appellant. Since, the purpose of expenditure and the allowability thereof has not been disputed by the revenue, we find that the addition has been made owing to non-furnishing of the details only. Hence, in the interest of justice, we direct the AO to examine the details with regard to the expenditure of Rs.8.89 Cr. The assessee shall submit all the required details to the AO to substantive the claim. Appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed for statistical purpose. Amortization of premium paid on purchase of securities - HELD THAT:- CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2008 dated 26.11.2008 (though issued for assessment of banks) provides for amortization of premium paid on purchase of securities, as the same is in line with the RBI guidelines, governing the assesses being banks. Having regard to the above said Circular and distinguishing the decision of the apex court in the case of Vijava Bank [1990 (9) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] several coordinate benches of the Hon’ble Tribunal have allowed deduction claimed on account of amortization of premium on purchase of securities, as in the facts of the appellant under consideration. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|