TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 81
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... erred in confirming the disallowance of amount of depreciation of Rs. 8,81,838/-claimed by the appellant company on the additions made to building. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-6 Pune has also erred in disallowing the amount of depreciation of Rs. 93,209/- claimed by the appellant company on the additions made to furniture and fixtures even though all the details related thereto were submitted. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-6 Pune has also erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,623/- merely due to difference in ITS data i.e on account of income which does not belong to the appellant company in any way. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, modify, expand the ground(s)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m of depreciation amounting to Rs. 8,81,838/- since no completion certificate from Local Authority or Concerned Authority was provided by the assessee to the Department. The Ld. AR invited our attention to Page 72 of the paper book where completion certificate has been given dated 02.03.2010 by the architect of the building and this has been placed on record before the Department. However, this was not considered by the Revenue Authorities. Just because, there was no completion certificate produced from the local authority, depreciation was denied by the Department. 3.2 That further, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that on perusal of the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), he has upheld the disallowance made by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions relied on by both the sides. There is no dispute to the fact that the building which is owned by the assessee and is used for running the hospital is incomplete since the completion certificate has not been obtained by the assessee from the local authority and the building is not complete in every respect as per the approved plan. At the same time, there is also no dispute to the fact that the building has been used for the purpose of business. There is also no dispute to the fact that as against the turnover of Rs. 26,88,092/- in the A.Y. 2002-03 the turnover during the year has increased to Rs. 1,27,28,062/-. Therefore, the submission of the assessee before the Assessing O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Architect placed on record without any corroborative or supportive evidences which is not legally justifiable. In such circumstances, respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Pune as referred herein above, we allow ground No.1 raised in appeal by the assessee. 7. The ground No.2 relates to disallowance of depreciation on furniture and fixtures. The company had claimed to have made an addition of Rs. 3,34,074/- to the furniture and fixtures before 30.09.2009 and an addition of Rs. 18,64,173/- after 30.09.2009. The Assessing Officer noticed that the material like plywood, veneer were purchased on 31.03.2010 and hence could not have been utilized for making the furniture ready by 31.03.2010. Therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asking Tape 25/03/2010 31/03/2010 31/03/2010 125/- Annex-3(h) 8 Ratan Glass- Table top glass 31/03/2010 31/03/2010 31/03/2010 6,987/- Annex-3(i) The Ld. AR submitted that as per the above table, it is crystal clear that the date of invoice is much prior to 31.03.2010 and therefore, these furnitures and fixtures were utilized within 31.03.2010 and hence, the claim of depreciation should be allowed on these furnitures. 9. Per contra, the Ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the orders of the Sub-ordinate Authorities. 10. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. We have also analyzed the facts and circumstances of this case. There has been addition on furniture and fixtures ....