AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng assessee's appeal. On being asked, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the condonation petition filed wherein we note that the assessee received the impugned order dated 26.12.2016 on 05.01.2017 and the assessee company immediately forwarded the order to Shri Naresh Roy, Advocate who has filed an affidavit wherein it has been stated that he had received the order on 05.01.2017 from assessee, but it got misplaced and, thereafter, he could lay his hand on the impugned order only on 24.10.2017 and, then immediately he forwarded the order to Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate to prepare an appeal and the same was filed and thus there was a delay of 57 days. We note that the delay caused in preferring an appeal before the Tribunal is not because of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aintenance of the bus shelter, toilet block, foot over-bridges should not be prima-facie treated as 'road' within the meaning of explanation to sub-clause (c) of Clause (i) of sub section(4) of the section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. However, the assessee claimed depreciation of hoarding structure @ 100% but since the hoarding structure is treated as "plant & machinery" and the said structure was used for less than 180 days, therefore, the assessee is entitled to depreciation @ 7.5%(50% of 15%) instead of 100%. 5. In light of the above, I am satisfied that prima facie the order dated 31.03.2015 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenues. You are, therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thin the meaning of explanation to sub-clause (c) of clause (i) of sub-section 4 of section 80IA of the Act. The Ld. AR pointed out that this precise issue was raised by the AO in the course of regular assessment proceeding and the assessee had met all the issues raised by the AO and the same were placed on record before the AO and drew our attention to page 79 of the paper book which we note is the letter of the assessee to the AO [ Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-12, Kolkata] wherein the assessee replied to the query of AO in detail and justified the claims for seeking deduction of a sum of Rs. 1,91,10,791/- u/s. 80IA of the Act (which we note continues from page 79 to 82 of the paper book). And it was brought to the notice of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1065/Kol/2008, wherein bus shelters and foot bridges were considered to be part of infrastructural facilities for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. Thus, in our considered opinion, the AO has taken a possible view on the facts available on record. The law is well settled that if A.O has taken a possible view and the Ld. CIT has a different opinion on the same facts provisions of section 263 cannot be invoked and the order passed by the AO cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Since the Ld. CIT has done the same, the order passed by him is not sustainable in law and hence, is hereby quashed." 5. We note that the aforesaid order of the Tribunal has been challenged by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contemplated in clause (a) of the explanation to sub section (4) of Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it is not necessary to answer question no. 1. Section 80-IA provides that where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profit and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from any business referred to in sub-section (4) (such business being hereinafter referred to as "the eligible business"), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction of an amount equal to hundred per cent of the profits and gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. The relevant portion of sub-section (4)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was used for less than 180 days and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to depreciation @ 7.5% (50% of 15%) instead of 100%. It was brought to our notice by the Ld. AR that the question of depreciation was also decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee in assessee's own case for AY 2005-06. It was brought to our notice that the Tribunal agreed with the claim of the sister concern M/s. Selvel Advertising Pvt. Ltd. which carried out the same business activity like that of the assessee and the Tribunal upheld the view that the hoardings are temporary asset for which 100% depreciation is justifiable and the Ld. AR drew our attention to the order passed in ITA No. 820/Kol/2008. It was also brought to our notice that there was no furthe....