2019 (6) TMI 1372 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal granted on windmill depreciation, other issues upheld by CIT(A)

Jagadish Prabhakar Deshpande Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Pune.

Jagadish Prabhakar Deshpande Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Pune. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Denial of claim of deduction under Section 54F.2. Depreciation on windmill.3. Addition on account of deemed rental income.4. Disallowance under Section 14A.5. Adhoc disallowance of depreciation on vehicles.6. Adhoc disallowance of traveling and conveyance expenses.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Denial of Claim of Deduction under Section 54F:The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54F of Rs. 1,42,16,833/- for investment in a new residential bungalow and deposit in Capital Gains Accounts Scheme. The AO disallowed the claim as the assessee owned more than one house property on the date of transfer of the capital asset, which is against the provisions of Section 54F. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the old bungalow at Prabhat Road was demolished before the transfer date. Additionally, the three flats at Lake Town were considered capital assets, not business assets. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere with the factual findings.2. Depreciation on Windmill:The AO restricted the depreciation on the civil work foundation of the windmill to 10%, following the decision in Poonawalla Fin Vs. ACIT. The CIT(A) upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Cooper Foundary Pvt. Ltd., which allowed depreciation at 80% on the foundation cost incurred for the installation of the windmill. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for higher depreciation.3. Addition on Account of Deemed Rental Income:The AO added Rs. 5,62,800/- as deemed rental income for properties held as stock-in-trade and under construction. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the three flats at Lake Town were capital assets, not business assets, and the bungalow at Prabhat Road was not demolished as claimed. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the ground.4. Disallowance under Section 14A:The AO disallowed Rs. 1,16,146/- under Section 14A, applying Rule 8D, as the assessee had earned tax-free income but did not disallow any expenses. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, noting that the AO had recorded proper satisfaction and substantial investments were made by the assessee. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the ground.5. Adhoc Disallowance of Depreciation on Vehicles:The AO disallowed 10% of the depreciation on vehicles, amounting to Rs. 2,31,974/-, due to the personal element in their use. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, noting that the assessee did not provide any logbook or evidence to show exclusive business use. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere.6. Adhoc Disallowance of Traveling and Conveyance Expenses:The AO disallowed 10% of the traveling and conveyance expenses, amounting to Rs. 20,471/-, due to the personal element in their use. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, noting that the assessee did not provide any evidence to support his claim. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere.Conclusion:The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, granting relief on the issue of depreciation on the windmill while upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on other issues.