Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh
view of this fact, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), which warrant our interference, while holding that the development fees so received by the assessee is a capital receipt. We accordingly, confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss ground nos.10 & 11 in A.Y. 2010-11 and ground no.5 in A.Y. 2011-12. This disposes of all the grounds in the revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11.
So far as ground no.6 in A.Y. 2011-12 is concerned, it is similar to ground no.1 in the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11, which relates to disallowance made u/s. 14A. After hearing the rival submissions we noted that the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the impugned assessment year and therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s.14A. Our view is duly supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. 378 ITR 33 (Del) and that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Principal CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited in dated 13.10.2016. Respectfully following these decisions, we dismiss ground no.6 taken by the revenue for A.Y. 2011-12.
Ground no.7 relates to the rate of depreciation allowance allowed by the CIT(A) @15% instead of 10% on taxiways, aprons, parking bays and bridges. We have already dismissed this ground while dealing with ground no.3 in assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10-& 2010-11.
72 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd.
In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13th day of November, 2017.