9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmon order. 2. The assessee has raised the following common grounds of appeals except for variation in figures: 1. The Assessment order passed is wrong in law and without considering the facts and specific circumstances applicable to the appellant and is prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant. 2. The Assessing Officer has gone wrong on facts in identifying that the property was not used for business purpose as provided u/s 32 of the Income Tax Act 1961 since it was used previously for business purposes and intention to future use is still under consideration. The Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellants intention to use such prime area in SA Road Pallimukku, Ernakulam is only for its intended busine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012-13 under section 14A is totally wrong. While applying the rule 8D, Assessing Officer has violated the principles and procedures he himself had adopted previously in the assessment in respect of previous year. According to rule 8D, the expenditure in relation to the exempt income would be aggregate of the following: ............................" 2.2 At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that he did not wish to press the above additional ground and accordingly, made an endorsement to this effect. Acceding to the request of the Ld. AR, the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The first common ground is with regard to depreciation on letting out of building for business purposes. 3.1 The facts of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the repeated reports of the inspector of income tax that most of the building was not being put to any business use and the subsequent disclosure of rental receipts as house property income by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the total depreciation claim of the building by the assessee and assess the building space including the vacant area as the income from house property. 3.3 Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld. AR relied on the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No.99/Coch/2016 dated 17/11/2016. 3.4 The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 3.5 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. The ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, once the building has been occupied and even if the building is lying vacant for some period for renting out which even, according to the Ld. CIT(A), has been rented out during the assessment year 2010-11, depreciation cannot be denied. Once the building has been ready for use for the purpose of business, many Courts have taken views that in such cases depreciation has to be allowed. The case laws cited by the Ld. AR before both the authorities below and before us in support of his claim are as follows: (1) CIT vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 314 (2) CIT (9)(1) Mumbai vs. Broskalis Dredging India (P) Ltd. (2012) (8) TM 11447-Mumbai ITAT. (3) National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT - Delhi High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... os.277 & 278/Coch/2019 for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.279/Coch/2019 is dismissed. 4. The next common ground is with regard to disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w.s. 8D of the I.T. Act. 4.1 The facts of the case are that the assessee had made investments in equity shares of following companies to the tune of Rs. 13,81,88,297/- which remained intact during the block of assessment years: 1) India Vision Satellite Communications Ltd. Rs. 7,10,00,000/- 2) Yes Communications Rs. 3,04,27,328/- 3) Kapico Kerala Resorts (P) Ltd. Rs. 3,67,60,969/- The Assessing Officer made additions by applying Rule 8D r.w.s.14A by holding that the assessee had diverted the interest bearing fun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in determining the disallowance under Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules and rejected the above ground raised by the assessee. 4.3 Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is having enough own funds in the form of loans from Directors and Group companies and the assessee does not have interest bearing funds. According to the Ld. AR, the amounts invested in the above companies are yielding exempt income and hence, section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules cannot be applied. 4.4 The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee had availed interest bearing gold loans and bank loans so that section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules is applicable. 4.5 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
