ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. RADIUS INFRATEL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The AO's remand reports indicated that documentary evidence for the assets and expenses was examined and found satisfactory, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer concerning depreciation on fixed assets and various expenses. The CIT(A) had deleted these additions based on remand reports from the AO.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions related to depreciation and expenses without appreciating the basis for capitalization and the business purpose of expenses, respectively.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Kul BharatDr. B. R. R. Kumar
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
ORDER
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeals have been filed by Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi dated 19.06.2018 and the order of ld. CIT(A)-38, New Delhi dated 01.03.2018.
In the Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:
"(i) On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,16,15,339/- on account of depreciation on fixed assets without appreciating the fact that the assessee company had failed to explain the basis for the ratio taken for capitalization of these assets during the year.
2 & 5588/Del/2018 Radius Infratel Pvt. Ltd. (ii) On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2,06,07,004/- on account of various expenses without appreciating the fact that the assessee company had failed to give the exact details of the business purpose for which these expenses were incurred particularly when a major activity of the assessee was creation of capital work in progress during the year.”
In Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,82,12,745/- on account of addition of fixed assets which was by the way of transfer/ capitalization of telecom infrastructure of Rs. 139.25 crores from the capital work in progress after considering the appellate authorities order for AY 2013-14, without appreciating the fact that the assessee company had failed to explain the basis for the ratio taken for capitalization of these assets during the AY. 2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15.
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deciding the matter for AY 2014-15 on the basis of the order of CIT(A)-38, Delhi for AY 2013-14.” : A.Y. 2013- Depreciation: 4. From the Assessment Order, we find that the Assessing Officer has disallowed depreciation on plant & machinery to the tune of Rs.1,16,15,339/- as the assessee has not complied to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) obtained the remand report from the Assessing Officer wherein the AO categorically submitted that “documentary evidences in 3 & 5588/Del/2018 Radius Infratel Pvt. Ltd. the form of bills and various other supporting working and details were examined for all assets and the same was found to be satisfactory in an overall context”. Based on the remand report, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. Since, the revenue authorities namely the AO and the ld. CIT(A) fairly accepted the acquisition of the capital assets after due verification, the appeal filed by the revenue is liable to be dismissed.
: A.Y. 2013-14 Disallowance of Expenses:
Owing to non-submission of details by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has disallowed 20% of employee benefit expenses, 50% of other expenses, 20% of travelling expenses and 20% of the rental expenses. The ld. CIT(A) obtained the remand report from the Assessing Officer wherein the AO categorically submitted that he has examined voluminous documentary evidences in the form of various bills and other documents. Since, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is based on the remand report of the AO, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 29/09/2023.
More judgments on Section 32
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Doms Industries Ltd, Valsad vs PCIT, ValsadITA 595/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Aeon Formulations Private Limited, Chennai vs Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 2(1)…ITA 2481/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Fiitjee Limited, Delhi vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 9186/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Fiitjee Limited, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 9185/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
