9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal in assessee's own case for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2013-14 and 2014-15. He submitted that facts and circumstances of the present case being identical to earlier years, the order of the Coordinate Bench is to be followed for these assessment years also. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has filed summary of common issues assessed in AYs 2010-11, 2013-14 to 20116-17 and a copy of Tribunal's consolidated order dated 31.01.2023 passed in ITA no. 6357/Del/2013 & others. 3. The learned DR was fair enough to concede the fact that the issues involved are covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: ITA No. 9491/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Assessee's appeal): "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming action of Ld. AO in allowing claim of additional depreciation under section 32(l)(iia) of the Act and recomputed the deprecation of Rs 611,23,45,284 after giving effect to Assessment order of AY 2014-15 despite the Appellant had not claimed the additional deprecation in Income Tax Return of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le by the assessing officer. Further the said expenditure has not been approved by the Management Committee (MC) which is also in contravention to the production sharing contract (PSC). 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the total time cost and expenses recharged by the operator to the Unincorporated Joint Venture (UJV) amounting to Rs. 364,99,38,786/- which is the appellant share in the cost. The same has been disallowed by the AO as these were all estimated basis and no actual evidence was produced during the course of hearing. 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the payment of Rs. 33,57,83,017/- made for parent company overhead which has been made from the books of Rajasthan block to parent company of operator, thus it was considered as head office expenditure covered u/s 44C for the block. The same has been disallowed by the AO as these were all estimated basis without any evidence to support the same. 4. The appellant craves to add, amend, modify or alter any grounds of appeal at any time or before the hearing of the appeal." ITA No. 8984/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter alia, observing as under: "29. It is a fact on record that the assessee has not claimed additional depreciation admissible under clause (iia) of section 32(1). The assessing officer decided in the Assessment Order that the assessee has not choice not to the claim of additional depreciation under clause (iia) of section 32(1) in pursuance to the Explanation 5 which reads as under: "[Explanation 5.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the provisions of this sub-section shall apply whether or not the assessee has claimed the deduction in respect of depreciation in computing his total income;]" 30. The assessee contended that the said explanation is not applicable to the provisions of clause (iia) of section 32(1) because the explanation is placed before the said clause In the act. The assessee relied on the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Vs. The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd AIR 2000 SC 3714, M/s. Patel Roadways Ltd. vs. M/s. Prasad Trading Co AIR 1992 SC 1514) and Mohanlal Hargovinddas vs. State of M.P. AIR 1967 SC 1022/ to stress on the relevance of positioning of explanation. 31. The Id. CIT(A) held that a gene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds of appeal taken by the assessee are rejected. Appeals of the assessee for A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17 stand dismissed. 9. Now we take up Revenue's appeals. Ground no. 1 taken by the Revenue in both the assessment years in question relates to exploration & development expenditure u/s 40(i)(ia), allowed by the learned CIT(A). 10. We find that identical issue came up for adjudication before the Tribunal in Revenue's appeals in assessee's own case for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2013-14 and 201415 wherein the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 31.01.2023 rendered in ITA Nos. 6357/Del/2013; and ITA Nos. 5988 & 5989/Del/2018 for assessment years 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively, affirmed the CIT(A)'s order in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of exploration & development expenditure per se and on account of infraction of provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, inter alia, observing as under: "39. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 40. With regard to non-deduction of TDS on the expenditure charged to P&L account, we hold that, - The assessee has a Participating Interest (PI) in the unincorporated joint-ventur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e accounts of the Petroleum Operations in accordance with the provisions of the Accounting Procedure and the contract. Also, as per the Joint Operating Agreement entered by the parties to the PSC, operator is required to carry out Petroleum Operations in compliance with the obligations imposed upon the Contractor by the laws of India and the Contract including the timely filing of reports and payment of all fees, levies, taxes etc. - Clause 27 of the Tax Audit Report for the UJV certifies that the operator has complied with the requirement of Chapter XVII-B regarding deduction of tax at source & deposit thereof to the credit of Central Govt. - The appellant further submitted that the Hon'ble CIT(A) in its order for AY 2006-07 has held that operator has complied with provisions of TDS contained in Chapter XVII of the Act. - During AY under consideration, commercial production has commenced, therefore, even under provisions of IT Act, exploration and development expenses becomes allowable during AY under consideration. - The Id. CIT(A) has categorically held that the assessee (CEHL) has furnished tax audit report of the operator CEIL perusal of which shows that TDS re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby affirmed." 14. The order of the learned CIT(A) on the issue in question for the assessment years under consideration being in consonance with the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for earlier years, we see no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, order of learned CIT(A) for A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17 on the issue in question is affirmed. Ground No. 2 taken by the Revenue in its appeals for A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17 stand dismissed. 15. Ground no. 3 taken by the Revenue for both the assessment years in question relates to the over head expenditure claimed by the assessee, which were disallowed by the AO and in appeal stood allowed by the learned CIT(A). 16. We find that identical issue came up for adjudication before the Tribunal in Revenue's appeals in assessee's own case for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2013-14 and 201415 wherein the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 31.01.2023 rendered in ITA Nos. 6357/Del/2013; and ITA Nos. 5988 & 5989/Del/2018 for assessment years 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively, affirmed the CIT(A)'s order in allowed the assessee's claim of overhead expenditure, inter alia, by observing as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
