TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s decided by the ITAT to held DR could not produce any evidence in support of the contention that the space sold by the assessee was inclusive of plant and machinery. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, we are inclined not to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) - Decided against revenue Addition on account of payment of gratuity - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Since the payment has actually been made by assessee during the relevant year at the time of the employee leaving the services of the assessee and the same has been recorded in its regular books of account, it can be inferred that the expenditure has actually been incurred by assessee. Hence, we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A).- D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss depreciation claimed by assessee. 3. Briefly stated facts are that assessee is a limited company and is engaged in the business of development of software technology parks and related infrastructure facilities. The assessee had acquired a land on long lease basis from the West Bengal Electronics Industries Development Corporation Ltd., The assessee constructed two commercial towers, known as Intelligent Towers in Salk Lake City in Kolkata. The commercial property consists of building, land appurtenant thereto as well as plant and machinery inbuilt in the building such as lift, car parking, water supply, security maintenance etc. The assessee treated the commercial property and plant machinery inbuilt thereto as depreciable assets fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed depreciation on such reduced closing WDV. The AO worked out the depreciation of ₹ 13,87,530/- (10% of 1,38,75,305/-) and depreciation of plant and machinery at ₹ 19,70,923/- (25% 78,83,895/-). The total depreciation amounting to ₹ 33,58,453/- was disallowed by the AO and added to the income of assessee. 5. Aggrieved, by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) the Ld. AR demonstrated that assessee had sold out its commercial spaces forming part of the building block of assets only to M/s Bina Natural Produce Pvt. Ltd. for an amount of ₹ 1,09,50,300/- and to M/s Bangur Welfare Trust for an amount of ₹ 1,08,08,700/-. The assessee demonstrated that the WDV of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentative appearing on behalf of Revenue and Shri D.S. Damle, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of assessee. 8. We have heard rival parties and perused the materials available on record. Before us Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of AO whereas Ld. AR supported the order of Ld. CIT(A) and submitted the audited financial statements along with depreciation chart in support of his claim and relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A). 9. We find from the aforesaid discussion that AO has disallowed the depreciation of assessee by treating the transaction as sale of building and plant machinery inbuilt therein. However, we find that the assessee is following a policy of deducting the sale proceeds of the office from the bui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingly, the relevant ground raised by Revenue is dismissed. Second Issue 10. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by AO on account of payment of gratuity without showing any specific reason. 11. During the year, assessee had claimed expense of ₹ 46,731/- which has been disallowed by AO on the ground that no gratuity fund has been approved. However, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing that the employee has left the organization and the amount has actually been paid during the year. Accordingly the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by AO. 12 Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us. Since the payment has actually been made by assessee during the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
