TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eved and dissatisfied with the order of the CIT(A), the revenue has filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The Tribunal vide impugned order partly allowed the said appeal for statistical purposes. Hence, this appeal is filed at the instance of the assessee. 3. While admitting this appeal on 27.02.2007, the Court had formulated the following substantial questions of law:- (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal was right in law in holding that investment allowance granted in A.Y. 1983-84 and adjusted in A.Y. 1990-91 can be withdrawn in the year under consideration merely on cessation of some liabilities which is said to be taxable u/S 41(1) of the Act ? (2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal was right in law in holding that depreciation granted earlier can be withdrawn and taxed as income u/s 41(1) of the Act ? (3) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal was right in law in enhancing the income of the appellant ? 4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Soparkar appearing for the appellant-assessee has drawn our atte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year in which the ship or aircraft was acquired or the machinery or plant was installed, the assessee does not utilize the amount credited to the reserve account under sub-Section (4) of section 32A for the purpose of acquiring a new ship or a new aircraft or a new machinery or plant (othter than machinery or plant of the nature referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (d) of the provision to sub-section (1) of section 32A for the purpose of the business of the undertaking;' or (c) at any time before the expiry of ten years referred to in clause (b) the assessee utilises the amount credited to the reserve account under sub-section (4) of section 32A (I) for distribution by way of dividends or profits; or for remittance outside India as profits or for the creation of any asset outside India; or (iii) for any other purpose which is not a purpose of the business of the undertaking the investment allowance originally allowed shall be deemed to have been wrongly allowed, and the Assessing Officer may notwithstanding any contained in this Act, recompute the total income of the assessee for the relevant previous year and make the necessary amendment,; and the provisions of section 154 shal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompany Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Civil Appeal Nos. 356-357/06). That lead matter is for assessment year 1998-99. M/s Goa Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is in the business of manufacture and sale of soft drinks. For the purposes of its business, it bought bottles and crates whose cost per unit did not exceed Rs. 5,000/-. During the year ending 31.3.1998, the company received a sum of Rs. 6,89,91,901 on sale of scrap bottles and crates. The sale proceeds were segregated in two parts: (a) in respect of bottles and crates purchased prior to 31.03.1995; and (b) those purchased after 1.4.1995. 12. In the Return of income filed, the sale proceeds relating to bottles and crates purchased after 1.4.1995 were taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of short term capital gains under Section 50 whereas the sale proceeds relating to bottles and crates purchased prior to 31.3.1995 was not offered for short term capital gains on the ground that the assets stood depreciated at 100% under the proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) and hence did not form part of the block of assets. 13. For reasons given hereinabove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....991. The question to be asked is whether the assessee has proved the transaction dated 15.3.1991. The question of "appropriation" of the bottles to a particular contract is different from the concept relating to the nature of the transaction. In this case, the tell-tale circumstance against the assessee was that sub-lease is dated 8.3.1991. It is between M/s Aravali Leasing (lessee) and M/s Unikol Bottlers (sub-lessee). This sub-lease precedes the lease dated 15.3.1991 between the assessee (lessor) and M/s Aravali Leasing (lessee). As rightly questioned by the AO as to how M/s Aravali Leasing (lessee) could have entered into a sublease in favour of M/s Unikol bottlers on 8.3.1991 when it had not acquired leasehold rights till 15.3.1991 from the assessee as the lessor. Moreover, there is nothing in the alleged lease deed dated 15.3.1991 indicating commencement of the lease from a prior date. There is nothing in the so-called lease dated 15.3.1991 as to the arrangement between the parties prior to 15.3.1991. There is nothing in the socalled lease dated 15.3.1991 indicating any prior practice as submitted on behalf of assessee. On the contrary, the so-called lease dated 15.3.1991 reci....