TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal as under:- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 194481158/- made on account of depreciation claimed by the assessee at a higher rate by not appreciating that the facts of the case on which relied is different from the case of the assessee company." 2.1 "In the facts and under the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of Rs. 16146530/- by admitting fresh explanation of the assessee without referring to the A.O. for verification which is in violation of Provisions of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 46A." 2.2 In the facts and under the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....195/-. The ld AO made following additions/ disallowances a. disallowance of excess depreciation of Rs. 19,44,81,158/-, b. disallowance of unpaid leave encashment of Rs. 73,252/-, c. disallowance u/s 14A of Rs. 1,61,46,530/- and d. Addition on account of unverified creditors of Rs. 1,10,82,226/-. 6. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT (A). The ld CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 73252/- on account of unpaid leave encashment and all other disallowance were deleted and hence revenue is in appeal. On the issue of disallowance of unpaid leave encashment, the assessee has filed cross objection. 7. We first go to the appeal of the ld AO. The first ground of appeal is with respect to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2008-09 where ITAT has allowed the claim of the assessee of depreciation @60% on the above equipment. 10. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The identical issue arose in the case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08 wherein, the coordinate bench in ITA No. 5709/Del/2014 dated 18.12.2018 vide para No. 7 and 8 of the order allowed the claim of the assessee following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in HLS India Ltd (supra) against which the Special Leave Petition is also dismissed on 16.02.2012 vide SLP(E) No. 2723/2012 by the Honourable Supreme court. The ld AO also agreed that though the issue is covered by that decision but the SLP was preferred befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ho held that the ld AO has not recorded any satisfaction with respect to the correctness of the claim of the assessee that it has not incurred any expenditure to earn exempt income. Therefore, he deletes the disallowance. The ld AO is in appeal. 12. The ld DR supported the order of the ld AO. The ld AR supported the order of the ld CIT (A). 13. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and find that ld CIT (A) is correct that the ld AO has failed to record satisfaction about the correctness of the claim of the assessee that it has not incurred any expenditure to earn the exempt income. It is also true that the assessee has not received any exempt income during the year. Thus in absence of exempt income, relying on the decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith respect to them and therefore, he deleted the addition. 15. The ld DR referred to the ground No. 3 and stated that the ld CIT (A) should have waited for the remand report and further it was submitted within the time allowed by the ld CIT (A). It was further stated that the addition of the creditors should have been upheld by the ld CIT (A) without admitting the explanation of the assessee, which was not before the ld AO. 16. The ld AR vehemently supported the order of the ld CIT (A) stating that all the creditors are outstanding creditors in the books of account of the assessee and they have confirmed their account. It was further stated that none of the creditors or their liability are not non-existence. 17. We have carefully ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... objection filed by the assessee wherein, it has challenged the confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 73252/- with respect to leave encashment provision. The issue of this cross objection shows that the assessee has made a provision of the above sum but it has not been paid until the date of filing of return. Therefore, the ld AO u/s 43B (f), disallowed the above sum. On appeal of the ld CIT (A), the above disallowance was confirmed. 20. The assessee submitted that the assessee has made a provision of leave encashment and the same does not fall u/s 43B (f) relying on the decision of Exide industries Vs. Union of India 292 ITR 470(Cal). The ld AR also referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee‟s own case for Assessme....