TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-I, Nashik erred in holding that assessee had acquired right to collect toll and this right was a valuable right having commercial value when in fact assessee was getting recoupment of expenditure incurred on construction of road. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-I, Nashik erred in holding that assessee was entitled to depreciation on the cost of the road when the assessee had failed to fulfill conditions prescribed u/s. 32(l)(ii)i.e. the assessee was neither owner of the road nor had put the road for the purpose of its business. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-I, Nashik erred in rely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t ₹ 8,45,69,745/- and ₹ 33,21,000/- on account of supervision fees as not accrued in the previous year and computed the total income accordingly. After allowing carry forward losses of ₹ 8,82,18,383/- (the Assessing Officer also made disallowance of ₹ 33,00,000/-) the income was assessed to Rs.Nil. Matter was carried before the first appellate authority on various Grounds including above discussed two issues. 3. The first issue is against Assessing Officer holding that Licence to collect Toll is not an intangible asset eligible for depreciation @ 25%. Various contentions were raised before the CIT(A) in this regard who, having considered the same, has allowed the claim of the assessee. Same has been opposed befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 1962. The CIT(A) has rightly held that assessee is eligible for depreciation on this asset. This view is fortified by the decision of the ITAT, Pune Bench, in case of sister-concern of the assessee viz. Ashoka Information Pvt. Ltd. in ITA.No.44/PN/07 dated 31.12.2008 and other decisions in the cse of Reliance Ports and Terminals Ltd. in ITA.No.1743 to 45/Mum/07 dated 26.11.2007. In this background, the CIT(A) was justified in holding that right to collect toll is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation @ 25%. Same is upheld. 5. The next issue is with regard to disallowance of supervision fees of ₹ 33,21,000/-. The Assessing Officer has discussed this issue in para 4 of the assessment order as under: From the audit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seen that the issue of payment of supervision fees was there very much and in clear language mentioned in the concession agreement at multiple times. Further from the study of both it can be seen that the deliberations on the concerned matter were going on in continuous manner. The above mentioned letter from M.P.R.D.C. speaks at point 4 that the divisional officers of M.P.R.D.C. will act as maintenance consultant for that purpose. Therefore from the above deliberation it is clear that the assessee needed to pay the supervision fees. Following this the assessee could have made the provision for these expenses and could have claimed the same in those concerned years. Further from the record submitted by the assessee it is no where seen that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the impugned disallowance of ₹ 33,21,000/- is unwarranted and the same is directed to be deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 7. Same has been opposed before us on behalf of the Revenue inter alia submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 33,21,000/- on account of supervision charges paid on cash basis when the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting and that liability had not crystallized during the year. On the other hand the Ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing supervision fees of ₹ 33,21,000/- on the ground that fees accrued in earlier year, and the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
