TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9. 4. Shri S.K.Jain representing the Department fairly admitted that the only issue raised by the Department is on account of depreciation on Effluent Treatment Plant, the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. 5. We have heard both sides. The Revenue in its appeal has assailed the findings of CIT(A) in allowing relief in respect of depreciation on Affluent Treatment Plant Rs. 55,51,132/-. The Ld. Authorized Representative has filed calculation of tax effect involved in the appeal. As per the working furnished by the ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee, the tax effect involved in this appeal is Rs. 22,44,284/- including surcharge and education cess. Undisputedly, the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than the monetary limit prescribed by the recent CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dated 08-08-2019 for filing of appeals before the Tribunal by the Department. The CBDT vide circular dated 08-08-2019 (supra) has amended Para 3 of Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11-07-2018 thereby enhancing monetary limit of tax effect from Rs. 20 Lakhs to Rs. 50 Lakhs for filing of appeals by the Department before the Tribunal. Thus, without going into merit of the iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... below have made addition of Rs. 7,53,197/- holding the expenditure incurred by the assessee on repairs and maintenance of ceiling as capital expenditure. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that assessee had incurred expenditure of Rs. 4,20,747/- in replacement of tiles of the laboratory. No new asset had come into existence nor any enduring benefit has been derived by the assessee . The expenditure was incurred exclusively on maintenance of the laboratory. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that assessee had also incurred expenditure of Rs. 3,32,450/- on refurbishment and relocation of existing equipment to new location. The expenditure was incurred merely for relocation of existing equipment and no new asset had come into existence. Therefore, the expenditure cannot be held on account of capital account. 8.2 In respect of additional ground of appeal, the Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that assessee was granted licence for import to the tune of Rs. 95,60,000/-. The assessee in the P&L Account had credited the amount of Rs. 81,96,366/- i.e. to the extent of benefit claimed in respect of advance licence. The Assessing Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epresentative of the assessee , the ground No.1 of the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 11. In Ground No.II of the appeal, the assessee has assailed findings of authorities below in treating the expenditure on repairs and maintenance and relocation of asset as capital expenditure. The contention of the assessee is that the expenditure of Rs. 4,20,747/- has been incurred on repairs and maintenance of the laboratory by way of replacement of tiles. We observe that in proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee had categorically submitted that the expenditure was incurred on replacement of perforated ceiling tiles in the laboratory. It is apparent from records that the expenditure was incurred on maintenance of the laboratory caused due to normal wear and tear. No new asset has come into existence, thus, we are of the considered view that the expenditure was in the nature of repairs and maintenance and not on capital account. 11.1 Further, the assessee has claimed expenditure on relocation of existing equipment to new Effluent Treatment Plant under the head 'repairs and maintenance'. The Revenue disallowed aforesaid expenditure on the premise that assessee would have got enduring....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y then can it be said that for the purposes of taxability that the income is no! hypothetical and it has really accrued to the assessee. 21. In so far as the present case is concerned, even if it is assumed that the assessee was entitled to the benefits under the advance licences as well as under the duty entitlement pass book, there was no corresponding liability on the customs authorities to pass on the benefit of duty free imports to the assessee until the goods are actually imported and made available for clearance. The benefits represent, at best, a hypothetical income which may or may not materialise and its money value is therefore not the income of the assessee. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 27. Applying the three tests laid down by various decisions of this Court, namely, whether the income accrued to the assessee is real or hypothetical; whether there is a corresponding liability of the other party to pass on the benefits of duty free import to the assessee even without any imports having been made; and the probability or improbability of realization of the benefits by the assessee considered from a realistic and practical point....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment year 2005-06. 21. Both sides heard. The issue raised by the assessee in additional ground of appeal is identical to the one we have already adjudicated while deciding the appeal of the assessee in assessment year 2005-06. The detailed findings given by us therein shall apply mutatis mutandis in the facts of present appeal as well. Accordingly, the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee in assessment year 2006-07 is allowed in similar terms. 22. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA NO.3307/MUM/2013,A.Y.2008-09: 23. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee in this appeal has raised five grounds. The assessee is not pressing Ground No.1. 23.1 The ground no.2 of the appeal is in respect of addition made on account of benefit derived from the licence. The assessee was issued licence under the scheme for the benefit of Rs. 1,86,35,364/-. During the financial year 2007-08 assessee could not use the licence and hence 'nil' amount was offered to tax in respect of licence benefit. The Assessing Officer made addition of the entire amount. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that th....