TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cing any contrary material. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of Ld.CIT(A). - ITA Nos.3489 & 3490/Del/2017 ITA No.6100/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2021 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER And DR.B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Ms. Mrinalini Sapra, Sr.DR Respondent by : Sh.Vartik Choksi, CA Sh. Biren Shah, CA ORDER PER KUL BHARAT , JM : These three appeals filed by the Revenue pertaining to three different assessment years i.e. 2012-13, 2013-14 2014-15 are directed against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)-5, Delhi dated 23.03.2017, 23.03.2017 14.07.2017 respectively. Since the identical grounds have been raised, all these three appeals are taken up together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 2. Firstly, we take up ITA No.3489/Del/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) of the Revenue s appeal. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 7,11,35,236/- being depreciation on intangible assets while relying on the appellate orders of her predecessors, which have not been accepted by Department and the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 4,00,16,673/-; disallowance of depreciation on spare parts of ₹ 52,27,624/-; disallowance out of repair and maintenance of vehicle of ₹ 8,89,784/-; disallowance of loss on sale of investment of ₹ 5,75,53,800/- and addition on account of income from other sources of ₹ 9,29,56,064/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the business income at ₹ 18,46,46,556/- against declared income of ₹ 10,26,11,633/-. Further, the Assessing Officer assessed the income at ₹ 9,29,92,233/- and directed to charge tax on book profit u/s 115JB of the Act amounting to ₹ 29,65,14,740/-. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal. Thereby, Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 7,11,35,236/- and ₹ 4,00,16,673/- made on account of disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets and depreciation on estimated assets. Further, Ld.CIT(A) in respect of depreciation on spare parts, disallowance on account of vehicle repairs and maintenance following the earlier order, allowed the claim of the assessee and in respect of the late payment of ESIC, was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the Revenue are thus, dismissed as rejected. 10. Ground No.5 raised by the Revenue is against the deletion of addition of ₹ 5,75,53,800/- on account of loss on sale of investment in the form of fertilizers bonds. 11. Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. 12. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is also decided in favour of the assessee. 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue by observing as under:- 9.2. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. Although the facts relating to why the addition was being made do not stand discussed in the assessment order, it is understood that the appellant is in the business of manufacture of fertilizers which is regulated by the Govt., in the sense, that the sale price of fertilizers is decided by Govt., normally at a subsidy. The appellant is granted subsidy to compensate the loss arising out of the manufacture and sale of fertilizers at lower than the cost price. The fertilizer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on its business more profitably and competitively, whereas in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. (228 ITR 253) the subsidy was paid for repayment of outstanding loans which were capital in nature and hence it was held to be the capital receipt. We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has recorded a finding on fact that the amount of the fertilizers bonds (subsidy) has been declared as a revenue receipt in the respective assessment years. This finding on facts is not rebutted by Revenue by placing any contrary material. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of Ld.CIT(A). Ground No.5 raised by the Revenue is thus, dismissed. 14. Now, we take up ITA No.3490/Del/2017 [Assessment Year 2013-14] wherein the Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 5,33,51,427/- being depreciation on intangible assets while relying on the appellate orders of her predecessors, which have not been accepted by Department and the Departmental appeals are pending before Hon'ble ITAT. 2. Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 5,33,51,427/- bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 4,00,13,570/- by merely relying on the orders of predecessors, which have not been accepted by Department and the appeal of Department is pending before ITAT. (2) That on the facts in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of disallowance of depreciation claimed on intangible assets when assessee failed to establish that the intangible assets like licenses had not outlived their importance. (3) That on the facts in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of disallowance of depreciation on estimated assets of ₹ 2,89,12,046/- and not appreciating the fact that the assessee was claiming depreciation on the intangibles acquired in the purchase, however no intangibles were specifically identified and valued. (4) That on the facts in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of disallowance of depreciation on spare machinery parts of ₹ 37,76,959/-without appreciating the fact that the plant and machinery had not been put to use and assessee did not provide any detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recation on capital spares during AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 2008-09, hence AO is directed to allow the same after due verification of capital spares purchased during the year under assessment. So, Ground No.4 in ITA No.764/DeI/2011 (AY 2006-07), Ground No.2 in ITA No.765/Del/2011 (AY 2007-08) and Ground No.1 in ITA No. 3508/Del/2011 (AY 2008-09) in assessee's appeals are determined in favour of the assessee. The Revenue has not pointed out any change into facts and circumstances of the case. Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue is thus, dismissed. 28. Ground No.5 raised by the Revenue is against the disallowance of expenses on vehicle repair and maintenance of ₹ 10,09,679/-. 29. Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the assessment order and submitted that Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the additions. 30. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the expenditure has been made purely on the adhoc basis and has been rightly deleted by Ld.CIT(A). 31. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that ld.CIT(A) has followed the earlier year s orders and coupled with the fact that the disallowances are made purel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
