GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (7) TMI 117 - ITAT HYDERABAD

2015 (7) TMI 117 - ITAT HYDERABAD - [2015] 42 ITR (Trib) 54 (ITAT [Hyd]) - Disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) - TDS remittance made before the due date of filing of return of income was not in conformity with the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- The department has not disputed the fact that the expenditure claimed by the assessee which is the subject matter of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was entirely paid during the relevant previous year and nothing remained payable on the la .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

isallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee - reasons recorded that the newspaper publication was inaugurated by the Governor and Chief Minister of A.P. on 22.10.2007, the A.O. has formed an opinion that the business of the assessee has commenced from that date. Hence, depreciation @ 15% will not be allowed as the assets on which depreciation has been claimed is put to use for less than 180 days - Held that:- The term ‘used’ as employed in section 32(1) has to be given a wider meaning an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ery as well as electrical installation were ready for use in the impugned assessment year. Only because the inauguration took place in October, 2007 that cannot be a sole criteria to deny assessee’s claim of depreciation at the full value when there is no material brought on record by the department to show that the plant and machinery and electrical installations were not ready for use prior to 22.10.2007. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-III, Hyderabad dated 02.04.2015 for the A.Y. 2008-2009. First we will deal with the Revenue s appeal being ITA.No.338/Hyd/2015. The only effective ground raised by the department reads as under : 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) as the TDS remittance made before the due date of filing of return of income was not in conformity with the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 2. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

A.O. noticed that assessee has made the following payments without deducting tax at source. Rent ₹ 11,02,000 Transport Charges ₹ 36,47,987 Rent on Education Centre & District Offices. ₹ 33,79,135 Total Rs.1,07,14,603 3. Since the assessee had failed to deduct tax while making the aforesaid payments, the A.O. disallowed the expenditure claimed by applying the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and added back the amount of ₹ 1,07,14,603 to assessee s income for the impugn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ious year, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made in view of the decision of ITAT, Vizag Special Bench in the case of Merlyn Shipping and Transport 146 TTJ (1) and the decision of Hon ble A.P. High Court in ITTA.No.352 of 2014 dated 24.06.2014 in case of CIT vs. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate. The learned CIT(A) finding merit in the submissions of the assessee and following the decision of ITAT Special Bench in the case of Merlyn Shipping and Transport (supra), deleted the addition m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Shipping and Transport (supra), the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is not sustainable. The Ld. CIT(A) having deleted the addition by following the decision of the ITAT, Vizag Special Bench as aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), which is accordingly upheld. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA.No.351/Hyd/2015 - A.Y. 2008-09 : 6. In this appeal, assessee has raised in total 9 grounds. Gro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the merits of disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to ₹ 38,43,674. 7. At the outset, we propose to deal with the grounds raised by the assessee on merits. Briefly the facts relating to the issue in dispute are, assessee, as stated earlier, is engaged in the business of newspaper publication. Assessment in the case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the Act by virtue of the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act on 06.12.2010 determining th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

015 on opening WDV on electrical equipment of ₹ 10,06,768. It was further observed that on all other assets, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 50% of normal rate of depreciation as it is used for less than 180 days. From the aforesaid facts, the A.O. was of the opinion that the assessee having commenced its business only on 22.10.2007, it could not have used its assets before that date. Hence, assessee s claim of depreciation @ 15% on opening WDV of plant and machinery and electrical .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

12 proposing to complete the assessment exparte under section 147 as well as another letter dated 14.09.2012 directing the assessee to file its objections on or before 26.06.2012 also failed to evoke any response from the assessee. Therefore, the A.O. finding no other option, proceeded to complete the assessment exparte under section 144 of the Act. The A.O. noticed that the depreciation claimed by the assessee at ₹ 3,45,43,794 comprises of depreciation claimed at 15% amounting to ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the purpose of business before that date. Accordingly, he held that assessee is not eligible for depreciation @ 15% on opening WDV of plant and machinery, electrical equipment, but is eligible for 50% of the depreciation. Therefore, he restricted the depreciation at 7.5%. Accordingly, he disallowed the excess depreciation of ₹ 38,43,674 and the loss determined was reduced by that amount. Being aggrieved of disallowance of depreciation, assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reciation on the opening WDV was not correct. The learned A.R. submitted, though, assessee has not claimed any depreciation in the initial year of purchase, but it cannot prevent the assessee from claiming depreciation at the appropriate rate in the subsequent assessment year. It was also submitted that without disturbing the WDV of the assets of the earlier years, it will not be possible to change the WDV of its assets for the subsequent assessment year. In support of such contention, assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

brought any evidence on record to establish its claim that the business actually commenced in the previous assessment year. As far as assessee s submission that opening WDV cannot be disturbed, Ld. CIT(A) stated that since the WDV for the current year was the same as the actual cost of the asset and since assessee has not claimed any depreciation till 01.04.2007, the assessee s contention cannot be accepted. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 10. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r relevant to the A.Y. 2007-2008 and has been brought as opening WDV as on 01.04.2007. Moreover, there being no material before the department that assessee has not put to use the assets for the purpose of its business, disallowance of depreciation only relying upon the fact that inauguration of newspaper took place on 22.10.2007 is without basis. 11. Learned D.R. on the other hand, referring to letters of the assessee submitted before the A.O., which forms part of the assessment record, submitt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

well as the orders of the revenue authorities on this issue. As could be seen from the reasons recorded as well as the discussions made in the assessment order, only on the basis of the fact that the newspaper publication was inaugurated by the Governor and Chief Minister of A.P. on 22.10.2007, the A.O. has formed an opinion that the business of the assessee has commenced from that date. Hence, depreciation @ 15% will not be allowed as the assets on which depreciation has been claimed is put to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r and is put to use for the purpose of business or profession for a period of less than 180 days in that previous year, deduction under section 32(1) in respect of such asset shall be restricted to 50% of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset. Thus, to qualify for full amount of depreciation, two conditions have to be satisfied as per second proviso to section 32(1). Firstly, the asset on which depreciation is claimed, must have been acquired by the assessee during the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as the department also has accepted the opening WDV shown by the assessee. Therefore, the other condition which remains to be satisfied by the assessee for claiming full depreciation is, whether the assessee has put to use such assets for the purpose of his business or profession for more than 180 days in the relevant previous year. Only relying upon the Director s Report wherein it is mentioned that inauguration of newspaper happened on 22.10.2007, the A.O. has held that business of assessee ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ve the fact that the plant and machinery as well as electrical equipments were not put to use for the purpose of assessee s business prior to 22.10.2007. In this regard, it is necessary to observe that the words used in section 32(1) are used for the purpose of business or put to use for the purpose of business. The provision does not use the expression commencement of business . 13. The expression used for the purpose of business or put to use for the purpose of business as employed in section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y used in the business during the relevant assessment year. The Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Geo Tech Construction Corporation (2000) 244 ITR 452 held that if the asset on which depreciation is claimed is ready for use, then depreciation is allowable. While coming to such conclusion, the Hon ble High Court observed that the word used in section 32(1) is to be given a wider meaning. The Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premier Industries (India) Limited .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version