M/S BOULDER HILLS LEISURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1234/HYD/2014Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2021AY 2007-0814 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of depreciation. It noted that the issue of the golf course being ready for use and business commencement had been decided against the assessee in a prior Tribunal order, with an appeal pending before the High Court.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation on a golf course for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09. The lower authorities disallowed this claim, stating the business had not commenced and assets were not ready for use.

What were the issues?

Whether depreciation can be claimed on fixed assets before commencement of business or when they are not ready for use.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

& 1234/HYD/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Hyderabad M/s.Boulder Hills Leisure Present Assessing Officer after Private Limited, Vs restructuring of Income Tax Dept: Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner of [PAN: AACCB5076C] Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri A.V.Raghuram, AR For Revenue : Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR Date of Hearing : 24-03-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 06-05-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : These two assessee’s appeals for AYs.2007-08 & 2008-09 arise from the CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad’s order(s) both dated 03- 03-2014, passed in appeal Nos.0640 & 0641/CIT(A)-II, Hyd/ 2011-12; in proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both parties. Case files perused.

2.

It transpires at the outset that assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action disallowing depreciation claim(s) for the :- 2 -: & 1234/Hyd/2014 precise reason that it had neither commenced its business nor the fixed assets had been kept as ready to use. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under: 2. The facts and figures pertaining to A.Y.2007-08 and 2008-09 are as under: Sl. Asst. Year Income or loss Order u/s. Date of order Nature of additions No. returned Rs.(-) Depreciation 1 2007-08 3,88,81,784/- 143(3) 29.12.2009 disallowed: Rs.3,60,93,017/- Income from other 143(3) 2 2007-08 18.11.2011 sources: r.w.s.263 Rs.1,17,06,046/- Rs.(-) Income from other 143(3) 3 2008-09 5,09,79,421/- 18.11.2011 sources: r.w.s.147 Rs.55,33,162/- :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 1233 & 1234/Hyd/2014 :- 4 -: ITA Nos. 1233 & 1234/Hyd/2014 :- 5 -: ITA Nos. 1233 & 1234/Hyd/2014 :- 6 -: ITA Nos. 1233 & 1234/Hyd/2014 :- 7 -: ITA Nos. 1233 & 1234/Hyd/2014 :- 8 -: ITA Nos. 1233 & 1234/Hyd/2014 :- 9 -: ITA Nos. 1233 & 1234/Hyd/2014 :- 10 -: ITA Nos. 1233 & 1234/Hyd/2014 :- 11 -: ITA Nos. 1233 & 1234/Hyd/2014 :- 12 -: ITA Nos. 1233 & 1234/Hyd/2014

3.

Learned authorised representative vehemently contended during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating the assessee as not eligible for the impugned depreciation claim pertaining to the corresponding fixed assets i.e., golf course in AYs.2007-08 and 2008-09. He further clarified that the assessee’s appeal ITTA No.515/2012 raising the very issue against the tribunal’s first round order in Section 263 proceedings holding to the contrary; is pending before the hon'ble jurisdictional high court and therefore, both these appeals deserve to be adjourned sine die so as to await final adjudication thereof. Mr.Raghuram lastly contended that the facts of the latter AY.2008-09 before us stand on a different footing since the assessee’s golf course had been let out giving rise to the income derived therefrom in FY.2007-08.

4.

Learned departmental representative has strongly supported the impugned depreciation allowance made in both the lower proceedings.

:- 13 -: & 1234/Hyd/2014

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →