9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on assets given under finance by treating the lease transaction as finance transaction. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation in respect of assets given on lease by the appellant in earlier years." 3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee took us through page 2 of the assessment order and stated that the AO relaying on the earlier years order for AY 1995-96 to AY 2003-04 disallowed the claim of depreciation on assets leased during the previous year amounting to Rs. 2,66,10,238/- and also disallowed the depreciation in respect of the assets given on lease on earlier years to the tune of Rs. 11,58,10,481/-. Accordingly, the total depreciation disallowed by the AO was Rs. 14,24,20,719/-. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the following paragraphs of the assessment order: - "The depreciation pertaining to lease transactions entered into during the previous year /is Rs. 2,66,10,2381- on various assets. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal for immediately preceding AY 20C3-04 vide order no CIT(A)-5/ACIT-2(2)/IT-56/09- 10 dated 11.08 2011. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal in the year being identical, the disallowances made are upheld." Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the tribunal all along has confirmed the orders of the lower authorities disallowing the clam of depreciation from AY 1995-96, 1999-2000. But subsequently, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.C.D.S Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 527 (SC), the tribunal in MA No. 420 to 422/Mum/2013 arising from ITA No. 2574 to 2576/Mum/2010 order dated 30-04-2014 allowed the claim of the assessee on the basis that the tribunal for AY 1995-96 to 1999-2000 has allowed the claim of depreciation of assessee by following the Supreme Court decision in the case of I.C.D.S Ltd. (supra). The Tribunal in MA No. 420-422/Mum/2013 arising out of ITA No.2574 to 2576/Mum/2010 for AY 1995-96 to 1997-98 vide order dated 30-04-2014 has allowed this claim vide Para 4 as under: - "4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material placed on record. It is observed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase rent from the income of the assessee." 6. In view of the above, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue, consistently in assessee's own case. On query from the Bench, the learned CIT Departmental Representative fairly conceded the position. After hearing both the sides and going by the facts of the case, we find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee and against Revenue by Tribunal's decision in assessee's own case in earlier years. Respectfully following the Tribunal's decision and also Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S Ltd. (supra), we allow the claim of depreciation on earlier years transactions as well as in previous years transactions. This issue of assessee's appeal is allowed. 7. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in treating the notional gain arising on securitization of lease receivables as taxable receipt. For this assessee has raised following ground No.3: - "3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing grounds: - "4. Without prejudice to ground No.3, taxing the amount of Rs. 88.54 lakhs as income has resulted in double taxation of the same income, as the whole amount of Rs. 18.56 crs. has been assessed to tax in subsequent years 2005-06 to 209-10." 11. On query from the Bench, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue can be remitted back to the file of the AO for verification of figures and facts and this should be taxed as the assessee itself offered income. We find that the plea of the assessee is quite reasonable and we direct the AO to allow the relief in response to double taxation of the same income. Learned CIT Departmental Representative also agreed to the proposal and stated that the issue can be remitted back to the file of the AO for verification of figures and consequentially allow relief to the assessee. We direct the AO accordingly. This additional ground is admitted and remanded back to the file of the AO and allowed for statistical purposes. 12. The next issue raised by assessee by way of additional ground is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in disallowing expenses relatable to exempt income by invokin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
