Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: VAT Audit :: TDS :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: cpt :: VAT RATES :: empanelment :: form 3cd :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT
 
 
From the Courts »
  Nishant Construction Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
 Samson Maritime Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mother Hospital Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Larsen & Toubro Ltd vs. State of Jharkhand (Supreme Court)
 Nishant Construction Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
 Flipkart India Private Limited vs. ACIT (Karnataka High Court)
 JSW Steel Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  CIT vs. Uday M. Ghare (Bombay High Court)
 Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) And Ors.
 Rakesh Raj And Associates Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-Ii & Anr.
 Venu Charitable Society And Anr. Vs. Director General Of Income Tax

DCIT,Circle-12(1), New Delhi. Vs. Gateway Impex (P) Ltd., B-26, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi.
September, 28th 2015
        IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
             DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI

     BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                          ITA No.220/Del/2014
                        Assessment Year : 2005-06

DCIT,                              Vs. Gateway Impex (P) Ltd.,
Circle-12(1),                          B-26,
New Delhi.                             Qutab Institutional Area,
                                       New Delhi.
                                       PAN: AAACG6562C

     (Appellant)                               (Respondent)

           Assessee by           :     None
           Department by        :      Shri Amrit Lal, DR
           Date of Hearing      :      23.09.2015
           Date of Pronouncement:      24.09.2015

                                  ORDER

     This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the

CIT(A) on 31.10.2013 in relation to the Assessment Year 2005-06.

2.   The only effective ground raised in this appeal is against restricting

the addition of Rs.21,03,361/- to Rs.2,88,513/- made by disallowing the

excess depreciation claimed by the assessee.

3.   Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in

the business of sale, purchase and development of property and letting it to
                                                              ITA No.220/Del/2014   2





tenants and also providing for the conveniences and services commonly

provided in apartments and business quarters.        The assessee claimed

depreciation on plant and machinery. It was observed by the AO that

besides claiming depreciation on lifts, windows cleaning system, HVAC,

IBMS, etc., the assessee also made allocation of other pre-operative

expenses on proportionate basis.     He noticed that the assessee's main

activity was of giving building on rent. He, therefore, came to hold that the

entire expenditure incurred on fixed assets by the assessee was pertaining to

rental income. Since the assessee was also providing certain maintenance

services, he held that the depreciation was allowable only on those assets,

namely, lifts, windows cleaning system, HVAC, IBMS, uplift trolley and

sound proofing system. As such, he re-determined the opening written

down value of Plant and machinery used for maintenance and services at

Rs.2.39 crore and computed allowable depreciation at Rs.59.83 lac. As the

assessee had claimed depreciation amounting to Rs.80.86 lac, the

differential amount of Rs.21.03 lac was disallowed.             Against the

disallowance of depreciation to this extent, the ld. CIT(A) allowed

depreciation to the tune of Rs.18,14,848/- on pre-operative expenses

capitalized, but, disallowed depreciation on the rent paid to the DDA at
                                                              ITA No.220/Del/2014   3


Rs.2,88,513/-. The Revenue is aggrieved against the relief allowed in the

first appeal.

4.    I have heard the ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record.

An adjournment application was filed by one counsel without there being

any Power of attorney in his favour.       Such adjournment request was

rejected. Accordingly, the appeal is being disposed of on merits ex parte

qua the assessee.

5.   It is observed that the ld. CIT(A) has allowed relief only in respect of

pre-operative expenses which were capitalized by the assessee in the

previous year relevant to assessment year 2003-04.          Not only such

capitalization was allowed by the AO in the assessment completed u/s

143(3) of the Act for that year, but also allowed depreciation on such block

of plant and machinery.        Once the Revenue, after making proper

investigation, has accepted addition to the block of Plant and machinery by

the amount of pre-operative expenses in an earlier year and also allowed

depreciation accordingly, it is impermissible to the AO in a later year to

disturb the opening written down value of such block of assets by opining

that the pre-operative expenses should not have been capitalized. There is

nothing on record to indicate that some proceedings were taken up for the
                                                                 ITA No.220/Del/2014   4





assessment year 2003-04 to rectify the allowing of capitalization of such

pre-operative expenses to plant and machinery. In view of the foregoing

discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) was right in

allowing depreciation on pre-operative expenses capitalized under the head

`Plant and machinery' for business purpose.


6.    In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

      The decision was pronounced in the open court on 24th September,

      2015.

                                                         Sd/-
                                                      (R.S. SYAL)
                                                  ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 24th September, 2015.

dk

Copy forwarded to

1.   Appellant
2.   Respondent
3.   CIT
4.   CIT(A)
5.   DR
                                                Dy. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Team

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions