GLOBAL VISION SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 603/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 October 2018AY 2011-122 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 dismissed the ground related to depreciation as the assessee failed to provide evidence to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings. Ground 2 was not pressed, and Ground 3 was dismissed as the tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' order.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the AO's disallowance of depreciation on office premises for using it less than 180 days. The assessee also challenged disallowances on stamp paper/advocate fees and travelling expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether depreciation on office premises can be restricted for use less than 180 days, and whether disallowances on stamp paper/advocate fees and travelling expenses were justified.

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, KOLKATA BENCH “C-SMC”, KOLKATA

Before: SH. J.SUDHAKAR REDDY

Hearing: 25.09.2018Pronounced: 24.10.2018

ORDER

PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 05.02.2018 passed by CIT(A)-2, Kolkata for AY 2011-12 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) on the following grounds:-

1.

1. “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of A.O. who restricted depreciation allowance on office premises amounting to Rs.2,79,959/- @ 50% on the ground of putting into use for less than 180 days.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of A.O. who proceeded on erroneous belief and misconception of law in holding that the appellant had incurred cost of stamp paper (Rs.5000/-) and advocate fee (Rs.28,021/-) aggregating to Rs.33,021/-.

3. That on the facts and int eh circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by A.O. to the tune of Rs.48,035/- out of Travelling and conveyance expenses.

4. That the appellant craves leave to add, adduce, alter or amend any ground or grounds on or before the date of hearing.”

2. After hearing rival contentions, I hold as follows:- Regarding the disallowance of the claim of depreciation on office premises, on the ground that, the assessee has not put the same to use for more than Year: 2011-12] 180 days, the assessee produced a copy of Electricity bills as evidence of use. Ld.CIT(A) was of the view that, as the assessee has purchased furniture after 13.09.2010, there is no scope of using building prior to October 2010. Before us, the assessee has not produced any evidence to controvert the findings of the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, this ground of the assessee is dismissed.

3. Ground No.2 is dismissed as not pressed.

4. Ground No.3 is against the travelling and convenience expenses disallowed on adhoc basis.

5. After going through the order of lower authorities, I find no reason to interfere in this order. Hence, I dismiss this ground of the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.10.2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →