Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI
per Section 32 of the Act.
14. In so far as, the judicial pronouncements relied by the assessee are concerned, since, the assessee himself has bifurcated the value of the land and the building during the registration of conveyance deed and the stamp duty & 3208/Del/2015 Sanya Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO has been collected by State Government based on the circle rate on the value of the land and the building which are identifiable separately, the judicial pronouncements relied by the assessee are not applicable to the present case, Thus, we find no merit in the Ground No. 2 of the assessee, accordingly, we dismiss the Ground No. 2 of the assessee.
The assessee has not pressed the Ground No. 3, accordingly, Ground No. 3 is dismissed not pressed.
In the result, the Appeal of the assessee in (A.Y 2010-11) is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Even in the present appeal, the Ground No. 1 is regarding rejection of claim of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation. Considering the fact that the assessee had not specified loss claimed by the assessee as either business loss or unabsorbed depreciation in the return filed by the assessee, since, we have remanded the similar issue to the file of the A.O. in Assessment Year 2010-11, finding the parity, the issue involved in the Ground No.1 of the present Appeal is also remanded to the file of the A.O. for de-novo adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its claim of unabsorbed depreciation, accordingly Ground No. 1 of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
ITA Nos.3259 & 3208/Del/2015 Sanya Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 15. The Ground No. 2 is regarding disallowance of depreciation on land computed by the A.O. by estimating the cost of land out of the total consolidated cost of hotel building complex. We have already dealt with the said issue for the Assessment Year 2010-11 in and held that the assessee is not eligible for depreciation on land cost and dismissed the Ground No. 2 in Assessment Year 2010-11, by finding the parity and applying the law, mutatis mutandis applies to AY 2011-12 and we find no merit in Ground No. 2, accordingly, the Ground No.2 of the Assessee is dismissed.
The assessee has not pressed the Ground No. 3, accordingly, Ground No. 3 of the assessee is dismissed that as not pressed.
In the result, Appeal in (A.Y 2011-12 is partly allowed for statistical purpose.