Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2013 (12) TMI 1657

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e u/s.80IB amounting to Rs. 6,95,585/-. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in allowing the assessee's claim of Rs. 2,97,038/- on account of depreciation on electrical fittings. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,86,448/- U/s.40a(ia) on account of late payment of TDS." 2. The first ground is against allowing the claim of assessee u/s.80IB amounting to Rs. 6,95,585/-. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s.80IB at Rs. 6,95,585/- for claiming of deduction and audit report was not filed alongwith return. The A.O. gave reasonable opportunity of being heard on this issue which was availed by the assessee but the A.O. held that to the fact that the assessee had not submitted th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espectfully following the decision of Gujarat High Court reported in 201 ITR 325 AO is directed to allow claim of deduction under Section 80IB." 4. Now the Revenue is before us. Ld. Sr. D.R. relied upon the order of the A.O. and argued that statutory requirement had not been fulfilled by the appellant. Therefore, he was rightly decided and disallowed the claim u/s.80IB at Rs. 6,95,585/-. At the outset, ld. A.R. argued that audit report was furnished before the A.O. at the time of assessment and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries, 201 ITR 325, has held that if the assessee filed the audit report before the A.O. at the time of assessment, he should allow the claim of 80IB. Ld. A.R. further argue....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lex theatre. The electrical fittings include electrification and equipments connected to projector and other film exhibition systems. Appellant therefore claimed that these are in the nature of plant which is essential for carrying on the business activity. The 15% rate of depreciation is on electrical fittings in the nature of wiring, switches, sockets, fans etc. These items are only incidental and supplementary to the business. However in the appellant's case, the equipments and fittings are amounting to Rs. 59,48,760. Electrical wiring, sockets and switches cannot be of this much value unless valuable equipments are part of it and therefore these items will not be subject to 15% depreciation applicable to electrical fittings. Ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....siness of running a multiplex theatre. The cost of electric fittings and equipments amounting to Rs. 59,48,760/-. The electric fittings are engaged for running the projector and film exhibition systems. Thus, the electric fittings and equipments are apparently in the nature of apparatus or plant which is essential for carrying on the main business activity of the assessee. The various High Courts have held that depreciation on items as per Rule are less but are used or fitted with the main plant and machinery and are integral part of the very plant and machinery for carrying on the business activity, the higher depreciation can be allowed. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Karnataka Power Corporation, 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessing officer disallowed depreciation on capitalised expenses on the ground that TDS was not paid in time. Appellant submitted that the entire TDS was paid on May 30, 2005 which is much before the due date of filing return. As per retrospective amendment by finance act 2008 the expense is allowable if TDs for the month of March is paid before due date of filing return. TDS in this case is prior to March 2005 and therefore amended provisions will not apply to the appellant. Appellant's argument that depreciation cannot be disallowed under section 40 (a) (ia) of IT act since it talks of expenditure by way of interest, commission, brokerages, fees for professional services. There is no provision which prohibits appellant from c....