TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 746
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. First, we take up the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2008 - 09 arising out of proceedings u/s 154. 4. The Grounds raised are as under:- "1. Because the CIT (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in arbitrarily upholding the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 4,75,063/- on account of depreciation, alleged to have been claimed in excess, withdrawn vide order u/s 154 of the IT. Act, 1961 dated 15.09.2011, which order of the Assessing Officer is contrary to facts, bad in law and be quashed. 2. Because the CIT (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 4,75,063/- out of depreciation claimed by the assessee. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... plates, Shoe Lasts @ 30% while depreciation should be allowed @ 15%. When the A.O. issued show cause notice to the assessee in this regard, it was submitted by the assessee that the assessee wrongly claimed depreciation on this item but in fact, it is revenue expenditure. The A.O. did not find any merit in this contention and he made disallowance of Rs. 475,063/- being depreciation excess claimed and allowed. Learned CIT (A) upheld the assessment order and the assessee is in further appeal before us. Before us, this is not the claim of the assessee that depreciation on Tools, Moulds with Shoe plates & Shoe Lasts is allowable @ 30%. The claim is this that this expense is revenue expenditure. In our considered opinion, whether expenditure is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce, this judgment is not applicable. 8. The second judgment is of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (Supra). In that case, the tribunal noted as per Para 5 of that judgment that the moulds and Dies did not have longevity and were replaced frequently. Under these facts, it was held that the expenditure on Moulds and Dies was revenue expenditure. In the present case, we have already noted that the assessee has not shown that any such income on account of sale or closing stock of scrap was accounted for by the assessee. It means, the expenditure in the present case is not for replacement of moulds. Hence, this judgment is also not applicable. 9. The third judgment is of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t this issue is covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Liberty India, 317 ITR 218. Respectfully following this judgment, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT (A) on this issue. These grounds are rejected. 14. As per Ground No. 5, the grievance of the assessee is about decision of CIT (A) to the effect that subsidy of Rs. 21,53,803/- is part of actual cost of Plant & Machinery but the claim of the assessee is that the said subsidy is capital subsidy for setting up plant in backward area and not part of actual cost. 15. It was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that on pages 9 & 10 of the paper book is the letter dated 12.08.2009 about approval of subsidy and in particular,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(3). 19. As per Grounds No. 1 to 2, the only one grievance of the assessee is about not allowing deduction u/s 80IB of the I. T. Act in respect of Duty Draw Back income of Rs. 221,21,269/-. As per Grounds No. 3 to 4, the only one grievance of the assessee is about decision of CIT (A) to the effect that subsidy of Rs. 21,53,803/- is part of actual cost of Plant & Machinery and as a consequence reduction in depreciation amount by Rs. 274,610/- but the claim of the assessee is that the said subsidy is capital subsidy for setting up plant in backward area and not part of actual cost. As per Grounds No. 5 to 6, the only one grievance of the assessee is about decision of CIT (A) to the effect that cost of moulds of Rs. 30,78,133/- is capital exp....