2019 (11) TMI 1041

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A.Y. 2013-14 (Assessee's appeal) 1. Ld. CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 45,12,19,128/- being claim u/s 80IA of the Act on ICDs/CFS which are Inland ports, ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the Appellant's own case in assessment year 2003-04 to 2005-06. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred, on fact and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,92,28,553/- being the claim of deduction on account of advance lease rent paid for the land taken on long terms lease for business purposes on pro rata basis, ignoring the fact that similar claim had been allowed in earlier years. 3. The Appellant pleads of the grounds to be allowed. ITA No. 1551/DEL/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 (Rev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and as such they are not infrastructure facilities eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer also disallowed income from Rail system (Rolling stocks) amounting to Rs. 282,63,60,260/-. The Assessing Officer further made addition in respect of depreciation on assets retired from Active use at Rs. 2,78,347/, disallowance on depreciation on assets not registered at Rs. 2,78,130/- and also depreciation on land at Rs. 2,92,28,553/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer assessed income at Rs. 11,45,60,05,368/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. As regards to assessee's appeal, Ground No. 1, the Ld. AR submitted tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct of earlier years assessment orders which now stands allowed in favour of assessee as per the directions of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2007- 08. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Ground No. 2 of the assessee's appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 11. As regards to Revenue's appeal, the Ld. AR submitted that in respect of Ground No. 1, the order of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in assessee's own case in favour of the assessee by dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue. The Ld. AR further point....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ers dated 7.05.2018 and 02.07.2018 thereby dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue [SLP (Civil) Diary No. 13966/2018 and 14875/2018]. Therefore, this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 17. As regards to Ground No. 3, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 2,78,130/- on account of depreciation on assets not registered in assessee's name. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the depreciation is allowable on assets owned by the assessee and as the assessee did not own the building, the depreciation was not allowable. The Assessing Officer did not correctly appreciate the facts and relevant law in disallowing the claim. The ....