2012 (10) TMI 540 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decisions on 10B deduction, depreciation, maintenance expenses, and reopening cases.

DCIT, Circle-14 (1), New Delhi. Versus M/s Quadrant Infotech India (P) Ltd.,

DCIT, Circle-14 (1), New Delhi. Versus M/s Quadrant Infotech India (P) Ltd., - TMI Issues Involved:1. Allowing of deduction under section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 18,76,004 on account of depreciation on electrical installation for the assessment year 2003-04.3. Reopening of cases under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.4. Disallowance of Rs. 14,06,505 on account of maintenance expenses for the assessment year 2003-04.5. Acceptance of additional evidence by CIT(A).Detailed Analysis:1. Deduction under Section 10B:The sole issue raised by the Revenue was the allowance of deduction under section 10B. The assessee claimed this deduction for its new industrial undertaking at Gurgaon, which was registered as a 100% export-oriented unit. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim, arguing that the new unit was formed by splitting the existing business and transferring more than 20% of the old unit's assets. However, the CIT(A) found that the AO had miscalculated the percentage of old machinery transferred and determined it to be less than 20%. The CIT(A) also noted that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the new unit was a separate and distinct entity. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the eligibility of the assessee for the deduction under section 10B.2. Depreciation on Electrical Installation:For the assessment year 2003-04, the AO disallowed the depreciation on electrical installations, arguing that the assessee had already claimed a 30% deduction under section 24(1) against income from house property. The CIT(A) reversed this decision, stating that the maintenance charges received by the assessee were taxed as income from other sources, and thus, the actual expenditure, including depreciation, should be deducted under section 57. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the depreciation on electrical installations.3. Reopening of Cases under Section 147/148:The assessee challenged the reopening of cases for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2003-04. The primary objections were defects in the form of reasons recorded and that the reopening was based on an audit party's report. The Tribunal found that the reopening for the assessment year 2001-02 was justified as the original assessment was not completed under section 143(3). For the assessment year 2003-04, the Tribunal held that reopening based on factual errors pointed out by the audit party was permissible. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's objections and upheld the reopening of cases.4. Disallowance of Maintenance Expenses:The AO disallowed the maintenance expenses of Rs. 14,06,505 for the assessment year 2003-04, arguing that the assessee had already claimed a 30% deduction under section 24(1). The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, stating that these expenses were related to building maintenance, which was covered under the 30% deduction. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) and upheld the disallowance of maintenance expenses.5. Acceptance of Additional Evidence:The Revenue challenged the acceptance of additional evidence by the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2001-02, 2003-04, and 2005-06. The Tribunal found that the additional evidence admitted by the CIT(A) was significant and necessary for deciding the claim of the assessee. The evidence was accepted after obtaining a remand report from the AO, who did not object to the merits of the additional evidence. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's objection regarding the acceptance of additional evidence.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross-objections filed by the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues. The assessee was found eligible for the deduction under section 10B, the disallowance of depreciation on electrical installations was reversed, the reopening of cases was justified, the disallowance of maintenance expenses was upheld, and the acceptance of additional evidence by the CIT(A) was deemed appropriate.