DCIT CC 3(1) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD WIND FARMS (KRISHNA) LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6831/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2017AY 2009-103 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It noted that an identical addition in original proceedings was deleted by the Tribunal, which held the expenditure to be revenue in nature as it was for maintaining roads to wind farms and no new asset was created.

What were the facts?

The revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance made on Repairs & Maintenance expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses treating them as capital in nature, following a previous order despite the ITAT having deleted a similar disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the Repairs & Maintenance expenses incurred on roads to wind farms are capital or revenue in nature. Whether the AO can make an identical disallowance in a Section 153A assessment when a similar disallowance was deleted by the ITAT in original proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 143(3),Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Ghosh
For Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha
Hearing: 4.5.2017Pronounced: 4.5.2017

The revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 26-08-2016 passed by Ld CIT(A)-51, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2009-10. The revenue is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made out of Repairs & Maintenance expenses.

2.

The present assessment was completed by the AO u/s 153A of the Act consequent to the search operations conducted upon the assessee u/s 132 of the Act on 14.3.2013. The AO disallowed Repairs & Maintenance expenses to the tune of 56,40,625/- (Rs.59,37,500 less depreciation) treating the same as capital in nature. It is pertinent to note that the assessing officer has made the addition by following the order originally passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, wherein similar disallowance was made. Even though the said disallowance had been deleted by the ITAT, yet the AO made identical disallowance in the present sec.

153A assessment also on the reasoning that the decision rendered by the Tribunal has been challenged by the revenue by filing appeal before Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

3.

In the appellate proceedings, the Ld CIT(A) deleted the addition by following the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the earlier proceeding. Aggrieved, the revenue has filed this appeal.

4.

I heard the parties and perused the record. We notice that identical addition made in the original proceedings was deleted by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 17-09-2013 passed in by making following observations:- “... Obviously, the expenditure is incurred on maintaining the road to wind farms in remote areas and no new asset came into existence. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd (203 ITR 0556), which was relied on by Ld CIT(A), the expenditure for repairs in respect of road is revenue in nature.”

5.

I notice that the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal has already taken a view on this matter in the original proceeding and the same has been followed by the Ld CIT(A) in the present proceedings. Hence I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →