TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 493
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olidated order. 3. In appeal of the department i.e. ITA No.6841/Mum/2011, the department is objecting in deleting the addition of interest income of Rs.73,44,963/- & Rs.95,48,863/- and also deleting the addition made by the AO on account of depreciation on road of Rs.4,57,24,414/-. 4. Learned counsel of the assessee, at the very outset, stated that all the issues involved in the appeal of the department are covered by the decision of the Tribunal in its own case for assessment year 2007- 08, copy of the same has also been filed. 5. On the other hand, learned DR fairly stated that the issues are covered by the order of the Tribunal for immediately preceding year, however, he placed reliance on the order of the AO. 6. After consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich is in consonance with the finding of the Tribunal for immediately preceding year. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the learned CIT(A) in this respect and the grounds of the department are hereby rejected. 7. Regarding the depreciation on road of Rs.4,57,24,414/-, it is seen that this issue is also decided by the Tribunal for assessment year 2007-08. The issue was discussed by the Tribunal from paras 11 to 19. While allowing the appeal in respect of all these issues, the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., passed in ITA No.316/2011. The findings of the Hon‟ble High Court have also been reproduced in the order of the Tribunal for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oad by holding that „it does not fall under the category of plant and machinery‟. The assessee also stated that ground No.2 is allowable at the rate of 15% against 10% allowed by the learned CIT(A). 9. Learned counsel of the assessee stated that this issue is also covered by the order of the Tribunal for immediately preceding year. 10. On the other hand, learned DR stated that this issue was involved in earlier year. Arguments of the department were not recorded in right perspective by the Tribunal. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal should not be followed. It was also stated that the order of the Tribunal for immediately preceding year is not binding on the Tribunal. It was also argued that there is a difference between....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upra) and the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Road and Infrastructure Co.Ltd (supra). The objection of the learned DR has been recorded in paras 18 &19 of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, it cannot be said that the arguments of the department were not taken into consideration. The Tribunal has observed in last para of para 19 that "in the light of this specific clause in the Concession Agreement, we find that the decisions relied upon by the assessee squarely apply n the facts of the case. We accordingly, direct the AO to allow depreciation on toll road by treating it as plant and machinery. Accordingly, findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are modified to this extent." Facts are similar for the year under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n (2009) TIOL 93 (SC), copy of which was also filed. 16. On the other hand, learned CIT DR stated that provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) are amended w.e.f. 1-4-2004. Therefore, the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court is not applicable on the facts of the present case. 17. In reply, the learned counsel of the assessee stated that the assessee has not claimed any interest expenditure but has claimed deduction on account of various expenses on debenture issues. Therefore, the arguments of learned DR are misplaced. 18. We have heard rival submissions and considered them carefully. After considering the same, we found that the assessee has not claimed any interest but has claimed on account of various other expenditure on debentu....