TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of property acquired by the assessee where as in cross objection assessee is aggrieved by action of CIT(A) for deleting the disallowance made u/s.14A. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and perused. Facts in brief are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee firm had purchased a property being Unit No.5, 4tfl floor, South Central Wing, Ruby Building, Mumbai 400 028 vide agreement for sale dated 29/06/2011 for total consideration of Rs. 16.50 crores. During the assessment proceedings, it is observed that the assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs. 1,69,56,516/- on the said property. Hence the AO asked the assessee to produce evidences in support of claim mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayment was made only after taking loan from M/s.Reliance Home Finance P.Ltd. on 29/07/2011 when brokerage charges of Rs. 18,19,910/- was paid. b) According to the AO, the possession letter was prepared after registration of sale deed and hence it is not reliable a document c) On perusal of the electricity bill submitted, AO observed that the assessee has not done any business activity from the said premises as the infrastructure required for the purpose of assessee's business of IT related services of service provider i.e. computer, internet connection etc. were not installed. The assessee's payment for bills of electricity made at 124, Prabhadevi Unique Indl. Estate is not par with the bill from the new premises. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 14.2 From perusal of the documents, I do not find any reason to doubt the reliability of the possession letter dated 29/06/2011 as the same was issued post registration of the sale deed dated 06/07/2011 and bears the registration no. Moreover, issuance of possession letter and registration of the property were done in the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13. I do not understand as how these dates, as highlighted by the AO in the assessment order, will lead to denying of the depreciation of the premises for no use during the year. On the other hand, these dates reflect that the appellant certainly got the possession of the premises during the year under consideration itself. 14.3 The AO has also raised certain query regardi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ectricity charges are also kept on record. This Clearly establishes that there existed electricity connections in the new premises used by the appellant. 14.4 Apart from that certificate issued by the Dy. Director of Industries (MMR) during the year under consideration and allowance of depreciation in the subsequent year justify the claim of the possession and use of the new premises by the appellant during A.Y. 2012-13. In this regard, it is found that in the case laws relied upon by the Id. AR, Hon'ble Courts have allowed claim of depreciation in the cases of passive users too. 14.5 Considering totality of facts and circumstances of the issue involved, I do not have any doubt that the appellant was in possession of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee has provided bill for January and February 2012 to the AO. The assessee has provided the computer installation and - testing report and also the certificate from the Deputy Director of industries to prove that the assessee had commenced business from the said premises on 1st August 2011. 9. In view of the above, we observe that assessee has beyond doubt proved that the assessee was the owner of the office premises and had used the said premises during the previous year from 1/8/2011. The AO has himself accepted the date of commencement in the following year and allowed the depreciation. Furthermore, the detailed finding so recorded by CIT(A) after considering the remand report are as per material on record which do not require any i....