Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

A.C.I.T., Gurgaon Circle, Gurgaon Versus M/s. Omax Auto Ltd.,

2015 (9) TMI 1298 - ITAT DELHI

Late 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) 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( .....

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 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 w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inst 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 sewa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 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 function .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 2928/Del./2009 - Dated:- 4-9-2015 - SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. P Dam Kanunjna, Sr. D.R. For The Respondent : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, C.A. ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member: This appeal filed by the revenue on 17.06.2009 is directed against the order dated 16.03.2009 of the learned CIT(A), Panchkula for the assessment year 2003-04 on the following grounds : 1. On the facts and in the circ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing depreciation @ 80% in respect of cylinder, valves and regulators as against 25% allowed by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that these items termed as plant & machinery. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing depreciation @ 100% on water treatment plant & water pollution control equipment sy .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing depreciation @ 100% on sewage Treatment Plant as against 25% allowed by the Assessing Officer even though is plant termed as plant & machinery. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing depreciation @ 80% on LPG Gas Plant in Speedomax unit in respect of cylinder, valves and regulators as against 25% allowed by the Assessing Officer without .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of Amalgamation w.e.f. 28.02.2003. It has been stated that on the Amalgamation taking place, the brought forward losses of the said company are eligible for set off against the business profits of the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04 in terms of section 72A of the I.T. Act. The assessee company has claimed unabsorbed depreciation and business losses amounting to ₹ 27,95,48,422/- in the computation of taxable income. In the submissions made by the learned AR, the Assessing Officer f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the ACIT,Circle-1, Alwar who had jurisdiction over the case of M/s. Indital Tintoria Ltd. and these details are mentioned in the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2002-03 except for the succeeding year 2003-04. From the record, it reveals that the assessee company has claimed excess brought forward losses and depreciation, which is restricted to ₹ 26,06,85,370/- as against ₹ 27,95,48,422/- claimed by the assessee company. 3. The facts relevant 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

2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act. The details of such contribution of employers to PF are given as under : Employers Contribution to PF: Amount Date of Deduction Due date of payment Actual Date Dharuhera Unit 245735 3103.02 15.04.03 18.04.03 Speedomax 77280 31.05.02 15.06.02 17.06.02 83472 31.08.02 15.09.02 6.09.02 81936 31.05.02 15.06.02 17.06.02 92903 31.08.02 15.09.02 16.09.02 77591 28.02.03 15.03.03 16.03.03 Automax Plant-II 20419 31.05.02 15.06.02 17.06.02 20138 31.10.02 15.11.02 7.11.02 20480 30. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efore the ld. CIT(A), who accepted the contention of the assessee that the delayed payments made due to Sunday and Gazetted Holidays are eligible for deduction. The ld. CIT(A) has also given the details of such payments which have been made late due to Sundays and holidays with respect to both employees and employer s contribution at page 9 of the impugned order. He also accepted the contention of the assessee that the payments made within the grace period of five days from the due date are also .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntribution to PF, in this appeal before us. 5. The learned DR relying upon the assessment order, contended that the learned CIT(A) is not justified to accept the plea of the assessee while deleting the addition. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee placed strong reliance on the appellate order. 6. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below, materials available on record and the decisions relied upon. 7. Wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Offic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n allowing depreciation at different rates. The AO has given the detailed chart of excess depreciation claimed by the assessee in the assessment order. 09. The grievance of the Revenue as per grounds of appeal is confined to the following depreciation : Name of asset Dep. Claimed By assessee(%) Dep. Allowed by A.O. (%) Dep. Allowed by CIT(A) (%) (i). Cylinders, Valves & Regulators. 80% 25% 80% (ii). Water treatment plant & water pollution control equipment System 80% 25% 80% (in grounds .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gulators. 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. 12. As far as 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

lant 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. 13. In respect of depreciation on Racks, Bins & Trolleys, the AO has allowed the depreciation @ 15% on the ground that these are covered under the head furniture and fittings. The learned CIT(A) allowed depreciation @ 25% on these assets aft .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ory 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. 14. Similarly, the 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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