SDS RAMCIDES CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2774/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 June 2022AY 2014-154 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to 50% of the total amount claimed as depreciation, as the assets were put to use only from March 25, 2014. The disallowance made by the AO was incorrect.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed 100% depreciation on temporary office refurbishments in a leasehold premise. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation, and the CIT(A) allowed it at 10% instead of the claimed 50% of the total amount.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correctness of the disallowance of depreciation on temporary office structures and the eligible rate of depreciation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 07.06.2022 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 15.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai in appeal No. 474/2016-17/CIT(A)- 15 order dated 28.06.2018. Assessment was framed by Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate Circle -6(1), Chennai for AY

ITA No: 2774/Chny/2018 - 2 - 2014-15 u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) vide order dated 25.12.2016.

2.

At the outset it is noted that this appeal is time barred by 8 days as the CIT(A) passed the order on 28.06.2018 which was received by assessee on 01.08.2018 and appeal was filed only on 26.09.2018. In the condonation petition, assessee explained that the appeal is within the time as the order of CIT(A) received only on 01.08.2018 and appeal can be filed on or before 30.09.2018, but actually filed before the Tribunal only on 26.09.2018. We note it that the appeal is filed within the time and there is no delay.

3.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) upholding the action of the AO in making disallowance of depreciation to the extent of Rs. 63,10,205/-.

4.

We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us stated the facts that the assessee has refurbished it office which is a leasehold premises and claimed 100% depreciation on temporary structure, which are in the nature of wireless access point, false roofing, wall to wall carpet, partition walls of temporary structure which are incapable of ITA No: 2774/Chny/2018 - 3 - being salvaged in the event of vacation of the premises. Ld. Counsel also explained that the Assessing Officer has considered the wrong amount for disallowance while completing the assessment and Assessing Officer has wrongly assumed that the assessee has claimed 100% depreciation on total amount of Rs. 1,26,20,410/-. He stated that the actual facts are that the assessee has made claim of 50% of amount i.e., 63,10,205/- being 50% of the total amount against these assets were put to use w.e.f. 25.03.2014. The Assessing Officer wrongly disallowed the entire amount of Rs. 1,19,89,390/- after reducing 10% of depreciation of 50% i.e., 6,31,021/-. The CIT(A) rectified this mistake but allowed depreciation @ 10% in principal and rectified that the assessee is eligible for 50% of the amount i.e., 63,10,205/-. The Ld. DR could not controvert the above fact situation inspite of specific query raised by the Bench.

5.

We noted that the assessee has added the fixed asset for an amount of Rs. 1.26 crores and the same was put to use w.e.f. 25.03.2014 in the financial year 2013-14 relevant to assessment year 2014-15. We noted that the assessee has rightly claimed 50% of the total amount of Rs. 1,26,20,410/- that comes to Rs. 63,10,205/-. The assessee is entitled to this claim of Rs. 63,10,205/- @ 100% depreciation but only half of the depreciation because the asset was put to use only

ITA No: 2774/Chny/2018 - 4 - w.e.f. 25.03.2014. Hence, we allow the claim of assessee and accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 15th June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज कुमार अ�वाल) (महावीर �सह ) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) लेखा सद�य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�ई / Chennai; िदनांक / Dated : 15-06-2022 JPV आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु�त/CIT 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 6. गाड� फाईल/GF

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →