LAKSHMI BUILDER & DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2), MUMBAI

In ground no.1, assessee has challenged disallowance of depreciation amounting to ` 55,02,27,227, on leased assets.

Brief facts are, the assessee earlier known as Tata Finance Limited was engaged in financing and related activity. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 30th December 1999, declaring loss of ` 1,14,86,748 under normal provisions and book profit of ` 13,18,79,252, on which assessee paid taxes. In course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation of ` 55,02,27,226, on assets leased by it which includes depreciation @ 50% amounting to ` 16,04,71,679, on leased assets depreciation on which was disallowed in assessment year 1998–99. The Assessing Officer being of the view that allowability of depreciation is based on fulfillment of twin condition of ownership of assets by the claiment and its user for the purpose of business, called upon the assessee justify its claim. Though, the assessee made elaborate submissions justifying its claim

Though, the assessee challenged the disallowance of depreciation before the first appellate authority, however, he also sustained the disallowance.

The learned Sr. Counsel, Shri Dinesh Vyas, appearing for the assessee submitted that in the preceding assessment years in assessee’s own case, the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ICDS Ltd. v/s CIT, 350 ITR 527 (SC). In this context, he referred to the decision of the Tribunal for assessment years 1994– 95 to 1998–99. He submitted, there being no difference in facts on the basis of which the Tribunal had decided the issue in assessee’s own case earlier, the decisions have to be followed in the impugned assessment year as well. Further, he also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Apollo Finvest (I) Ltd., of 2013.

The learned Departmental Representative Shri Manjunatha Swamy, relied upon the observations of the Departmental Authorities.

We have considered rival submisions and perused material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. Undisputedly, the issue relating to assessee’s claim of depreciation on leased assets is a recurring dispute between the parties from the preceding assessment years. The Departmental Authorities treating the lease transaction as finance transaction continued to disallow assessee’s claim of depreciation. However, the Tribunal while deciding the issue in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1997–98 and 1998–99 in ITA no.6214/Mum./ 2003 and others, dated 6th January 2017, followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICDS Ltd. (supra) and allowed assessee’s claim of depreciation. Following the aforesaid decision, the Tribunal again while deciding assessee’s appeal for assessment years 1994–95 to 1997–98 in 1487/Mum./2012, dated 12th June 2017, allowed assessee’s claim with the following observations:– PARA–5 AND 6

There being no difference in facts nor any contrary decision brought to our notice by the learned Departmental Representative, respectfully following the decisions of the Co–ordinate Bench in 5 M/s. Tata Morots Ltd. assessee’s own case, as referred to above, wherein, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICDS Ltd. (supra), were applied we allow depreciation claimed by the assessee. This ground is allowed.

In ground no.2, assessee has challenged the disallowance of an amount of ` 89,10,830, being expenses incurred for increase in authorised share capital.

Brief facts are, the Assessing Officer while examining the nature of the expenditure claimed found that it was related to increase of authorised share capital of the company. Therefore, treating the expenditure incurred as capital nature, he disallowed the claim.

The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also sustained the disallowance for the very same reason.

We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. Learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation v/s CIT, 225 ITR 792 and Brooke Bond India Ltd v/s CIT, 225 ITR 798, the expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be treated as capital in nature. In view of the aforesaid, we uphold the decision of the first appellate authority on this issue. Ground no.2 is dismissed.

Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has debited an amount of ` 9,87,760=54 towards expenses relating to prior period called upon the assessee to justify its claim. Though, the assessee vide letter dated 27th February 2002, submitted that the expenditure was claimed because it crystallized in the impugned assessment year, however, the Assessing Officer rejecting the explanation of the assessee disallowed the expenditure claimed.

The first appellate authority also confirmed the disallowance.

Learned Sr. Counsel drawing our attention to the audit report in form no.3CD filed before the Assessing Officer submitted that in the relevant assessment year while the assessee offered prior period income of ` 76,06,741=23 it claimed prior period expenditure of ` 9,87,760=54. He submitted, though, the income and expenditure related to the prior period, however, since they crystilazed in the impugned assessment year, the assessee offered the income to tax and claimed the expenditure relating to prior period. He submitted, when the Department is accepting the prior period income, there is no reason why it should disallow the prior period expenditure. Further,

Finally, learned Sr. Counsel submitted, though, the assessee is following similar method of accounting with regard to prior period income and expenditure, no such disallowance has been made either in the preceding or succeeding assessment years. Therefore, applying the rule of consistency also, the expenditure has to be allowed.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

We have considered rival contentions and perused material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. In 8 M/s. Tata Morots Ltd. so far as the factual aspect of the issue is concerned, there is no dispute that in the relevant previous year the assessee has offered prior period income of ` 76,06,741=23 and claimed prior period expenditure of ` 9,87,760=54. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee also justified its claim by stating that such expenditure did crystallize in the impugned assessment year. The Assessing Officer has not rebutted the aforesaid claim of the assessee with any cogent reasoning. Moreover, when the Assessing Officer has no objection in accepting the prior period income, applying the same principle he should not have objected to the claim of prior period expenditure when such expenditure claimed by the assessee is far less than the prior period income. Even the expenditure could have been netted out against the income relating to prior period. Therefore, keeping in view the ratio laid down, we allow assessee’s claim and delete the addition made on account of disallowance of prior period expenditure. This ground is allowed.

Ground no.4 raised by the assessee corresponding to the only effective ground raised by the Revenue in its appeal, the issue of disallowance under section 14A of the Act has been raised.

Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that in the relevant previous year, the assessee has earned exempt income by way of dividend amounting to `

The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee upheld disallowance of interest expenditure, however, insofar as ad–hoc disallowance of 10% out of other expenditure is concerned, the first appellate authority deleted the disallowance on the reasoning that there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee has incurred any other expenditure for earning the dividend income. While the assessee is challenging disallowance of interest expenditure, the Department is aggrieved with the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting disallowance of other expenditure.

The learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee reiterating the stand taken before the Departmental Authorities submitted that own surplus interest free fund available with the assessee during the relevant previous year far exceeds the investments made in shares, therefore, no disallowance of interest expenditure can be made. He submitted, considering the aforesaid factor, the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1999–2000 to 2002–03, has deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure. Further, in support of his

The learned Departmental Representative, though, supported the decision of the first appellate authority in respect of disallowance of interest expenditure, however, so far as disallowance of other expenditure is concerned, he submitted, the first appellate authority was not justified in deleting the disallowance of other expenditures made by the Assessing Officer.

In the rejoinder, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted, though, disallowance of other expenditure is not called for, however, one percent out of the dividend income can be disallowed in view of the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1999–2000 to 2002–03.

We have considered rival contentions and perused material on record. We have also examined the decisions relied upon. Insofar as disallowance of interest expenditure is concerned, notably, the financial statement of the assessee clearly demonstrate the fact that the assessee was having own interest free fund available which far

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24.01.2018