TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the part of assets used in the business. Since the disallowance of ₹ 5,70,47,031/- of depreciation does not arise on the facts of the case, we agree with assessee's contentions and direct the AO to delete the addition so made. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowances towards advances which include capital goods - Held that:- Assessee pleaded that they were not in the business at that point of time during the period of completion of assessment and now they have restarted the business, they were in a position to furnish the necessary details. In view of that, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity can be given to assessee to substantiate the claims made in the return of income / P&L A/c. Assessee is directed to furnish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounts are actually written off in the Books of Accounts, being trading nature as irrecoverable. As and when they are recovered, the same are automatically to be taxed under the provisions of Section 41(1). In view of the specific provisions of Section 36(1)(vii), write off of the amount is enough to allow the same. As there is no dispute with reference to the fact that these amounts are not capital in nature, AO is directed to allow the amounts - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 1318/Hyd/2011 - - - Dated:- 26-6-2015 - B. Ramakotaiah, AM And Saktijit Dey, JM, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, AR For the Respondent : Smt Pallavi Agarwal, DR ORDER Per B. Ramakotaiah, AM. This is an appeal by asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itten off and the same has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income tax-V, which is not correct, not justified and bad in law. Hence, the addition may ple1,69,89,612/- towards Bad debts written off and the same has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income tax-V, which is not correct, not justified and bad in law. Hence, the addition may please be deleted. 5. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(3), Hyderabad has erred while disallowing an amount of ₹ 1,69,89,612/- towards Bad debts written off and the same has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income tax-V, which is not correct, not justified and bad in law. Hence, the addition may please be deleted. 9. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(3), H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 45,83,501 on WDV of computers shown at ₹ 1,06,98,740/- and ₹ 5,24,63,530/- on WDV of software and hardware shown at ₹ 6,32,78,926/-. Vide this office letters dated 12-12-2008 and 16-12-2008, assessee's AR was asked to furnish proof in support of existence of these assets and whether all these assets were put to use for earning a meager receipt of ₹ 80,75 lakhs. As there was no response from the assessee and as no evidence was filed in support of the existence of the above assets and their WDV as on 31-03-2006, assessee's claim of depreciation on these assets totaling to ₹ 5,70,47,031/- is disallowed and added . 6. Assessee contested before the Ld.CIT(A) that the disallowance is not correct, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion while claiming only loss incurred in the business. Therefore, question of disallowing the depreciation does not arise. From the table of un-absorbed business loss/depreciation to be carried over, it is evident that the depreciation claimed was only ₹ 61,02,857/- on the part of assets used in the business. Since the disallowance of ₹ 5,70,47,031/- of depreciation does not arise on the facts of the case, we agree with assessee's contentions and direct the AO to delete the addition so made. Ground No. 9 is accordingly, allowed. 9. Ground No. 2: AO noticed that assessee has disallowed an amount of ₹ 1,84,81,375/- towards advances which include capital goods. The entire amount was disallowed as the capital loss. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing loans. Therefore, without examining the details, it is not possible to confirm the same just because, assessee could not furnish any details. Here also Ld. Counsel pleaded that assessee can furnish necessary details before the AO. In view of this, this ground is restored to the file of AO to examine the nature of credit and treat accordingly as per the provisions of law and facts. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Ground No. 4 is also with reference to disallowance of an amount of ₹ 31,34,838/- towards advances written off being capital in nature. This ground is also similar to the issue in Ground No.2 discussed above. For the reasons stated there in, we are of the opinion that this matter is also can be re-e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
