TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1298
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,51,539/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of late deposit of employer's contribution to PF disregarding the fact that the payments were made beyond the due dates and were, therefore, not allowable u/s. 36(1)(va) and were to be treated as income u/s 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in contravention of the decision in the case of CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Limited 215 CTR 150 (Bom)? 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing depreciation @ 80% in respect of cylinder, valves and regulators as against 25% allowed by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o Rs. 22,64,85,660/- as per the provisions of MAT and paid taxes thereon. Later on, the case was picked up for scrutiny and notice was issued u/s. 143(2). The said company was merged with M/s. Indital Tintoria Ltd. in terms of the scheme of Amalgamation w.e.f. 28.02.2003. It has been stated that on the Amalgamation taking place, the brought forward losses of the said company are eligible for set off against the business profits of the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04 in terms of section 72A of the I.T. Act. The assessee company has claimed unabsorbed depreciation and business losses amounting to Rs. 27,95,48,422/- in the computation of taxable income. In the submissions made by the learned AR, the Assessing Officer found that the br....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The details of such contribution of employers to PF are given as under : Employers Contribution to PF: Amount Date of Deduction Due date of payment Actual Date Dharuhera Unit 245735 3103.02 15.04.03 18.04.03 Speedomax 77280 31.05.02 15.06.02 17.06.02 83472 31.08.02 15.09.02 6.09.02 81936 31.05.02 15.06.02 17.06.02 92903 31.08.02 15.09.02 16.09.02 77591 28.02.03 15.03.03 16.03.03 Automax Plant-II 20419 31.05.02 15.06.02 17.06.02 20138 31.10.02 15.11.02 7.11.02 20480 30.11.02 15.11.02 17.11.02 23104 31.03.03 15.04.03 16.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f late deposition of employer's contribution to PF, in this appeal before us. 5. The learned DR relying upon the assessment order, contended that the learned CIT(A) is not justified to accept the plea of the assessee while deleting the addition. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee placed strong reliance on the appellate order. 6. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below, materials available on record and the decisions relied upon. 7. While considering the grievance of the Revenue in the light of provisions of law applicable to the issue and the rival contentions of the parties, we find that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the deductio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal is confined to the following depreciation : Name of asset Dep. Claimed By assessee(%) Dep. Allowed by A.O. (%) Dep. Allowed by CIT(A) (%) (i). Cylinders, Valves & Regulators. 80% 25% 80% (ii). Water treatment plant & water pollution control equipment System 80% 25% 80% (in grounds of appeal 100% claim is shown ) (iii). Racks, Bins & Trolleys 25% 15% 25% (iv). Sewage Treatment Plant 100% 25% 100% (v). LPG Gas Plant in Speedomax 80% 25% 80% 10. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below and materials available on record. 11. As regards the depreciation on Cylinder, valve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se are covered under the head furniture and fittings. The learned CIT(A) allowed depreciation @ 25% on these assets after considering the contention of assessee that the racks are placed in the workshop to place the WIP components and bins and trolleys are meant for movement of components inside and outside the workshop. These assets are used in a very rough manner. In our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) appears to have rightly allowed depreciation on these assets at the rate of 25% as against 15% allowed by the AO, particularly when the assessee has been claiming the same rate of depreciation under the category of plant & machinery since inception and there has been no litigation on this point in the history of the assessee. We, therefo....