TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 529
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lobal Holdings Ltd. 3. This issue, it is seen, stands decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2000-01, in ITA No. 4220/Mum/2005, vide order dated 7-3-2014, holding as follows; "..............In the case in hand the purpose of investment at the most can be said for acquiring or having access to the new advanced technology in the mobile telecommunication system, which could be treated as acquisition of a new and modern profit making apparatus. The loss suffered due to the devaluation of the investment is on capital account. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of ld. CIT(A) qua this issue." (Page 27 of the order) 4. The facts remaining the same, no deviance is required to be made from the aforesaid Tribunal order for A.Y. 2000-01. Therefore, following the order of the co-ordinate Bench, ground No. 1.1 is rejected. 5. The assessee has raised an alternative ground that the loss on the shares of ICO Global Holding Ltd. is admissible as a capital loss. To this, the ld. D.R. has objected that such alternative ground was never taken up earlier at any stage, and that therefore, it is not per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for A.Y. 2000-01. 9. As per ground No.2, the ld. CIT(A) erred in denying the claim made u/s 80IA of the Act, in respect of earth station. The A.O. made the disallowance on the basis of a similar disallowance made for A.Y. 1996-97. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. 10. This issue stands consistently decided against the assesee by the Tribunal for the assessment years 1996-97 to 2000-01. Therefore, the facts remaining the same for the year under consideration also, this issue is decided against the assessee. 11. The assessee had also claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of internet. It is seen that for assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, the Tribunal has set aside this issue to the file of ld. CIT(A). Here also, the facts remaining the same, and in keeping in view the said appeal Tribunal order, this issue is remitted to the file of ld. CIT(A), to be decided afresh on affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. Ground No. 3 states that the ld. CIT(A) erred in charging interest u/s 234D of the Act. This issue stands decided against the assessee by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of "CIT vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.", ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sequent year. 17. Here, it is not disputed that the assessee had, in the succeeding year, suo motu made the necessary adjustments and reduction in the cost of depreciable fixed asset. It is only a question of time taken. In fact, there is no revenue loss. Therefore, ground No. 4 & 5 are accepted, directing the A.O. to make necessary verification and grant relief accordingly. 18. Ground No. 6 states that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in partially disallowing certain late remittances of Provident Fund (PF) concerning the contribution by the management towards PF and pension fund. It is not the case of the Department that the payments were made beyond the due date of filing the return of income. Such contributions are covered under the provisions of section 43-B of the Act, as held in the following decisions:- a) CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd. [2009], 319 ITR 306(SC) b) CIT vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (ITA No. 399 of 2012(Bom HC) c) CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (ITA No. 1002 & 1034 of 2012 (Bom HC) d) Euro Pratik Ispat P. Ltd. vs. ACIT [2013] , 27 ITR (T) 432 (Mum) (Trib. At page 433 para 4. e) Onward Technologies Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2013], 26 ITR (T) 734 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t as provided u/s. 194-1 of the Act. 10. We have carefully perused the lease deed as exhibited from page-1 to 42 of the Paper Book. A careful reading of the said lease deed transpires that the premium is not paid under a lease but is paid as a price for obtaining the lease, hence it precedes the grant of lease. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be equated with the rent which is paid periodically. A perusal of the records further show that the payment to MMRD is also for additional built up are and also for granting free of FSI area, such payment cannot be equated to rent. It is also seen that the MMRD in exercise of power u/s. 43 r.w. Sec. 37(1) of the Maharashtra Town Planning Act 1966, MRTP Act and other powers enabling the same has approved the proposal to modify regulation 4A(ii) and thereby increased the FSI of the entire 'G' Block of BKC. The Development Control Regulations for BKC specify the permissible FSI. Pursuant to such provisions, the assessee became entitled for additional FSI and has further acquired/purchased the additional built up area for construction of additional area on the aforesaid plot. Thus the assessee has made payment to MMRD under Dev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penses related to prior period. These expenses are of Rs. 49,99,521/- for A.Y. 2000-01. Under similar circumstances, the A.O. should verify whether this write-back of repair and maintenance expenses was also subjected to tax for A.Y. 1999-2000, being disallowed in the assessment order and to take steps to avoid double taxation of the same amount as per the Tribunal order for A.Y. 2000-01, for the year under consideration also, we remit the matter to the file of the A.O. for making a similar verification and to allow relief accordingly. ITA 4219/Mum/2005 for A.Y. 2001-02 (Revenue's appeal) 27. The first ground in this appeal by the Department fir A.Y. 2001-02 is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O. to allow depreciation of Rs. 21,02,61,421/- on undersea Flag Cable System. 28. This issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal for assessment years 1997-98 to 2000-01. In accordance with thereof, ground No. 1 is rejected. 29. As per ground No. 2, the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O. to restrict the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act to the contribution credited in the funds after the grace period, specified in the relev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e penalty on the disallowance of claim of business loss on account of written down value of shares of ICO Global in the facts and circumstances of the case does not warrant levy of penalty. Accordingly, we delete the penalty on this account." 34. For parity of facts for the year under consideration also, the levy of penalty on this count is deleted. 35. Penalty was also levied on disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act on income from earth station undertaking. This penalty amounting to Rs. 75.56 crores, The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. Here also for A.Y. 2000-01, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty holding as follows:- "18.2 Ground no. 3 is regarding levy of penalty on disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA. We have heard Ld. Senior Counsel as well as Ld. DR and considered the relevant material on record. Since the issue of deduction u/s 80IA on the internet income has been decided in favour of the assessee and the claim of deduction u/s 80IA has been allowed in the quantum appeal. Therefore, the penalty to the extent of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA on internet income is not sustainable and accordingly deleted. As regards the penalty against the disallowance of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant to the claim of higher depreciation on GDS, then we do not find that merely claiming a higher depreciation which is otherwise supported by the various decisions would lead to the conclusion that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed particulars of income. In view of our finding in the quantum appeal on this issue, we are of the considered opinion, that disallowance of higher depreciation on GDS switches does not warrant levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C). Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty on this account and hence we dismiss the appeal of the revenue." 39. Finding no difference in the facts for the year under consideration, following the Tribunal order for A.Y. 2000-01, ground No. 1 raised by the Department is rejected. 40. Penalty was also levied for wrong full claim of depreciation on GDS The equipment. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty. The Tribunal, for A.Y. 2000-01 has again decided the matter in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following that order, ground No. 2 is rejected. 41. Penalty was also levied for wrong full claim of advan....