9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the disallowance made by the AO on account of 'provision of expenses' to Rs. 18.64 crores as against Rs. 20,59.20,430/- made by the AO while making the assessment." 2. " The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,59,08,429/- made by the AO u/s 43B of the I.T. Act on account of interest on levy of sugar price for the season 1982-83." 3. " The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the depreciation on boilers (a 80% rather than the allowed depreciation @ 15% by AO while making assessment." I.T.A. No. 1538/DEL/2015 (A.Y 2008-09) 1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment Plant (ETP) valued at Rs. 27,38,162/- instead of depreciation @ 15% allowed by the AO. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as far as Ground of Appeal no. 5 which reads as:- "ADDITION OF DHARMADA RECEIPTS Rs. 12,14,932/- AND INTEREST EARNED ON ACCUMULATED DHARMADA FUNDS LYING IN BANK- Rs. 5,34,843/- -TOTAL ADDITION Rs. 17,49,775/- Because learned AO has erred on facts and in law in making addition of Dharmamda receipts and interest earned on accumulated Dharmada funds lying credited in a separate bank account aggregating Rs. 17,49,775/- to the income shown by the appellant in the return" is concerned, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the declaration filed u/s 158A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the declaration filed u/s 158A(1) of the Act in Form No. 8 in respect of additions of Rs. 12,14,932/- and Rs. 5,34,843/- being Dharmada receipts and interest earned on accumulated Dharmada funds respectively. Additional grounds of appeal "1. On The facts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) ought to have restricted the claim of depreciation @5%in respect of the assessee premises used for residential purpose by assessee." 3. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of crystal sugar and Alcoholic products in its two sugar units (Shamly and Unn) and two distillery units (Shamly and Pilkhani). The Assessing Officer observed that the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed the depreciation to that extent only. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that as regards grounds of appeal 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3, the same are withdrawn as order under Section 154 of the Act was passed by the CIT(A) and the relief was granted. Therefore, in assessee's appeal, only Ground No. 1 is contested herein. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in upholding action of the Assessing Officer in curtailing the original cost of the factory, buildings in Unn sugar units to Rs. 6,62,31,999/- as against Rs. 13,85,44,737/- claimed by the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee acquired Unn Sugar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3(1) of the Act as the Assessing Officer was satisfied that the main purpose of transfer of such assets was for reducing the tax liability by the assessee by claiming depreciation with reference to enhanced cost. The Assessing Officer mentioned in the assessment order that the Assessing Officer obtained the approval of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range (vi), New Delhi before invoking the said provision and recomputation of value of fixed assets. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition is not warranted and the same may be deleted. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is to be noted that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are withdrawn by the assessee. Hence, Ground Nos. 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 3 are dismissed. 8. As regards Revenue's appeal, the Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and submitted that the CIT(A) erred in law and facts in restricting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of provision of expenses to Rs. 18.64 crores as against Rs. 20,59,20,430/- made by the Assessing Officer while making the assessment. The Ld. DR further submitted that the CIT(A) also erred in deleting, the addition of Rs. 1,59,08,429/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act on account of interest on levy of sugar price for the season 1082-83. The Ld. DR further submitted that the CIT(A) allowing the depreciation on boiler 80% rather t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
