M.ARUNACHALAM AND CO,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1139/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 October 2016AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while the depreciation schedule showed no depreciation claimed on land for the windmill, a detailed verification was necessary to ascertain if the 'wind electric generator' amount included any land value. Therefore, the matter was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation, and the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 11,60,000/- on the erroneous belief that depreciation was claimed on land. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether depreciation was wrongly disallowed on land, and if the 'wind electric generator' cost included land value requiring verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]

For Respondent: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCIT

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee in this appeal directed against a order dated 29.01.2016 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai

1.

ITA No. 1139/Mds/2016. :- 2 -: assails an addition arising out of disallowance of a claim of �11,60,000/-.

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee was engaged in the business of construction of factories. As per assessee, ld. Assessing Officer while completing assessment reached an erroneous conclusion that it had claimed depreciation on land also.

The ld. Authorised Representative submitted that ld. Assessing Officer worked out himself a sum of �11,60,000/- as excess claim of depreciation on land. As per ld. Authorised Representative though assessee moved an appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) it was not successful. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) took an erroneous view that assessee had claimed 80% depreciation on cost of windmill which included land value of �14,50,000/-. Pointing out of depreciation schedule placed at paper book page No.19. The ld. Authorised Representative submitted that on office land of �2,92,82,496/- no depreciation was claimed by the assessee. As per ld. Authorised Representative the sum of �2,95,95,000/- which was presumed by the lower authorities to include value of land did not having in it any land at all. According to ld. Authorised Representative land for windmill generator costing �14,50,000/- was separately shown

ITA No. 1139/Mds/2016. :- 3 -: in the depreciation schedule and no depreciation was claimed thereon. Thus according to him, disallowance was wrongly made by the lower authorities.

3.

Per contra, the ld. Authorised Representative strongly supported the orders of the authorities below.

We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 4. orders of the authorities below. Total depreciation claimed by the assessee for the impugned assessment year came to �2,76,96,997/-.

The breakup of claim is placed before us as paper book in page no.19.

This is the very same amount which was considered by the assessee in its income computation statement placed at paper book page No.7.

The breakup of �2,76,96,997/- given in the paper book clearly show that land for windmill generation was valued at �14,50,000/- and no depreciation has been claimed against the above sum. However, in our opinion a detailed verification is necessary to find out whether �2,95,95,000/- shown as ‘wind electric generator’ include any land.

Therefore, we are of the opinion that matter requires a fresh look by the ld. Assessing Officer. We set aside the order of the lower authorities and remit the issue regarding disallowance of depreciation

ITA No. 1139/Mds/2016. :- 4 -: back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for verification and disposal in accordance with law.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on Friday, the 28th day of October, 2016, at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 32

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →