DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. AVICHAL BUILDCON (P) LTD., DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matter to the AO to examine the depreciation claim in light of previous years' assessments and relevant court decisions. The direction to allow deduction u/s 80IC was upheld.
What were the facts?
The assessee company demerged from M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. and claimed depreciation on plant and machinery purchased out of government grants. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation, considering Explanation-7 to Section 43(1). The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance but directed the AO to allow deduction u/s 80IC.
What were the issues?
Whether depreciation is allowable on assets purchased out of government grants, and whether deduction u/s 80IC is admissible.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.203 citing383 ITR 217 · 2016 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Before: SHRI & AND & SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI SHRI BHAVNESH SAINISHRI BHAVNESH SAINI SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI
PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT :- PER G.D. AGRAWAL, PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT These cross-appeals are filed against the order of learned CIT(A)- XXXIII, New Delhi dated 25th April, 2014.
Since the issues in these cross-appeals are interrelated, we consider them together.
2 ITA-4876/D/2014 & 824/D/2015
The facts of the case are that for the year under consideration, the assessee filed the return declaring loss of `2,48,48,142/-. Since as per the return of income the assessee had declared the loss, no deduction u/s 80-IC was claimed. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee company has demerged from M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. with effect from 01.04.2006 by the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 11th September, 2007. By such demerger, the assessee as well as Abhisar Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. came into effect. The Assessing Officer noticed that M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. have purchased the plant and machinery out of deferred government grants. Cost of such plant and machinery was `55.72 crores. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that by virtue of Explanation-7 to Section 43(1), the cost of asset should be reduced by the deferred government grants. He found that since the entire assets were purchased out of government grants, the assessee was not entitled to any depreciation. Accordingly, he disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee at `3,96,19,664/-, which resulted in the assessment of total income at `1,47,71,522/-. On appeal, the assessee challenged the disallowance of depreciation. Learned CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer on this issue and therefore, the assessee is in appeal vide ITA No.824/Del/2015. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IC and also filed the audit report in Form 10CCB. Learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 80IC as per law. The Revenue is in appeal against this direction of the learned CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material placed before us. So far as the assessee’s appeal is concerned, it is stated by the learned counsel that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. vide ITA No.823/Del/2015. He
3 ITA-4876/D/2014 & 824/D/2015 stated that Abhisar Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. was also demerged from M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. by the same order of Hon’ble High Court. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the depreciation in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. also which was directed to be allowed by the ITAT following the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. – [2016] 383 ITR 217 (SC). He, therefore, stated that the claim of depreciation may be allowed.
Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. She further stated that the demerger took place in the year 2006-07 while the year under consideration is 2011-12. How the depreciation can be claimed and allowed on actual cost of demerged assets. It should have been claimed on WDV. Learned counsel was not readily able to state what happened in the preceding four years so far as the allowability of depreciation is concerned.
After considering the facts of the case and submissions of both the sides, we deem it appropriate to set aside the orders of the authorities below on this point and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. Admittedly, demerger took place in the year 2006 and thereafter whether the depreciation is to be allowed on the actual cost of demerged assets or the cost is to be reduced by any government grant received by the demerged company should have been examined in the assessment year 2007-08 and thereafter, year after year, depreciation is to be allowed on WDV. These facts are not available on record. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to examine what happened in the preceding years. If in the preceding years the depreciation was not claimed or this issue was not considered and the facts of the case warrant the consideration of this issue in the year under consideration, then Assessing Officer will consider the same in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in 4 ITA-4876/D/2014 & 824/D/2015 the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (supra) and also the decision of ITAT in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. vide ITA No.823/Del/2015. If the claim of depreciation of the assessee is allowed, then the assessed income will turn into negative income and there will be no question of claim u/s 80IC which will render the Revenue’s appeal academic. If at all the Assessing Officer takes the decision to disallow the depreciation, then he will consider the claim of deduction u/s 80IC as per the direction of the learned CIT(A) in paragraph 5.5 of his order, which reads as under:-
“5.5 Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I admit the audit report in form 10CCB as fresh evidence and the same has been examined by the assessing officer on merits as well. No further opportunity is required as such. I have considered the judicial pronouncement relied by Ld. AR that the audit report in form 10CCB can be submitted before the first appellant authority specially under the circumstances when loss was claimed in return of income which was converted into positive income by making addition by the assessing officer. Accordingly, the assessing officer is directed to allow deduction u/s 80IC as per law treating that the requirement of filing audit report in form no.10CCB is met.”
We entirely agree with the above direction of learned CIT(A). The same is upheld.
In the result, both the appeals are deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 28.01.2019.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- M/S. Avichal Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs DCIT, New DelhiDelhi28 Jan 2019Remanded
Also relies on CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.
The Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matter to the AO to examine the depreciation claim in light of previous years' assessments and relevant court decisions. The direction to allow deduction u/s 80IC was up...
- Alpa India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs DCIT Circle -1(1), HyderabadHyderabad26 May 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.
The Tribunal held that lease rental income, even if reclassified as job work charges, is an incidental activity and not derived from the principal manufacturing business for Section 80IC purposes. Capital subsidy amortiz...
- M/S La Opala RG Ltd, Kolkata vs ACIT, Cir. 11(1), KolkataKolkata24 Nov 2022Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not adopt an unsustainable view in allowing the deduction under Section 80IC, as the export incentives were considered to have a direct nexus with the business. There...
- Veer Plastics Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT -4, AhmedabadAhmedabad9 Nov 2022Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted proper verification during the assessment proceedings, including examining Form 10CCB and financial statements. The PCIT's view was considered a change of opinion, not a valid ...
- M/S La Opala RG Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Cir.-11(1), KolkataKolkata18 May 2022Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made due enquiries and applied his mind to the issue of deduction under Section 80IC. The Tribunal further noted that a coordinate bench of the ITAT had previously decided a similar issu...
More judgments on Section 43(1)
- Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs A.C.I.T., Circle - 4(1), KolkataITA 1604/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Ceat Limited, Mumbai vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 8146/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT 1(3)(2), MumbaiITA 977/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs Tata Communications Ltd, MumbaiITA 830/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- ACIT Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai vs Grasim Industries Ltd, MumbaiITA 6530/MUM/2026[2003-04]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2003-04
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026