TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that building was already constructed in the month of February, 2010 and liability towards construction was ascertained and tax was also deducted on said payment. The Ld. DR also could not controvert this factual finding of the Ld. CIT(A) - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance on account of excess claim of depreciation on electrical items - whether these items were in the nature of electric installation, being part of plant and machinery and eligible for depreciation at the rate of 15%? - Held that:- CIT(A) in the impugned order has re-produced the list of the electrical items on which depreciation has been claimed at the rate of 15%. It is evident from the items that those are electrical installation and in the nature of essential part of plant and machinery, required for functioning of the machinery. The Ld. DR could not controvert that those items were essential for running of the plant and machinery and thus in the nature of electrical installation. In our opinion, order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is well reasoned - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.6021/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 16-3-2018 - SH. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee filed return of income declaring income of ₹ 58,84,95,367/- under normal provisions of Incometax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) and ₹ 64,21,22,181/-under section 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for a scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and complied with. In assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 28/03/2013, the Assessing Officer made various additions/disallowance. Aggrieved with the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. In ground Nos. 1 and 2, the Revenue has challenged deletion of disallowance of ₹ 1,39,58,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the act. 3.1 Before us, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the disallowance has been made in accordance with law under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income-tax Rules, 1962 and, thus, the Ld. CIT(A), is not justified in deleting the same. 3.2 On the contrary, the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd.(supra), I hold that no disallowance u/s 14A was called for in the case of the appellant. In view of the above, the Ground no. 3 is allowed in favour of the appellant company. 3.4 Before us, the fact that no exempt income was earned is undisputed. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd.(supra), has held that the section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. Thus, respectfully following the above decision, no disallowance could have been made under section 14A of the Act and accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition amounting to ₹ 1,39, 58,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. Thus, the grounds No. 1 and 2 of the appeal are dismissed. 4. In ground No. 3, the Revenue has challenged deleting of disallowance of ₹ 5,83, 812/- on account of claim of depreciation on canteen building. 4.1 The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence in support of the claim that canteen building was put to use during the year under con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vt. Ltd. is not a related party, and the fact that the AO has himself allowed such expenses for running the canteen in the month of March, 2010, implies that the canteen building was constructed and was put to use during the current year. Keeping in view the above, this ground is also allowed in favour of the appellant. 4.4 We find that main evidence in support of the claim of putting the canteen building to use is the running expenses of ₹ 24,83,572/- paid to M/s Gupta Hospitality Services Private Limited, which is an unrelated party. The Assessing Officer has allowed the running expenses. This factual finding has not been controverted by the Ld. DR. On the issue of provision of ₹ 25 lakhs, also the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that building was already constructed in the month of February, 2010 and liability towards construction was ascertained and tax was also deducted on said payment. The Ld. DR also could not controvert this factual finding of the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly, we uphold the same. The ground No. 3 of the appeal is accordingly dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
