TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 1085
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO on account of depreciation claim on motor vehicles of Rs. 10,12,764/-. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,44,39,344/- on account of disallowance of claim u/s.80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the reason that the conditions of the notification have not been complied with. 3. The appellant craves leave to add or amend, modify or delete any of the grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary." 2. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of builders and developers, operating a business centre and IT park and trading in shares, filed its e-return of income for the year under consideration on 23.09.2014 declaring total income at R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eciation on cars which were not purchased in the name of the assessee but in the name of its directors. Invoking the provisions of section 38(2) of the Act, the Assessing Officer made disallowance on account of personal use of cars at half of the amount of depreciation claimed. On this issue, the Tribunal held as follows: "5. Now turning to the disallowance on account of personal use of cars u/s. 38(2) of the Act, we find that the assessee is a Private Limited Company. There is no dearth of judicial precedents holding that there cannot be any disallowance of expenses in the hands of company on account of personal use even by its Directors. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Sayaji Iron and Engineering Company vs. CIT (2002) 253 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Briefly stated the facts are that the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 4,44,39,344/- u/s.80IA(4)(iii) of the Act without complying with the provisions of the Act and Income Tax Rules. Consequently, the assessee was asked to justify its claim with supporting documents. The assessee filed before the Assessing Officer its detailed submissions which were not accepted by the Assessing Officer and accordingly, the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 4,44,39,344/- u/s.80IA(4)(iii) of the Act was made by the Assessing Officer. 8. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the order o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same is allowed in the first year of undertaking, the AO cannot withdraw the deduction when the facts are identical. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the judgment of Honble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Paul Brothers (supra) stands applicable to the facts of the present case legally. 7. Further, for commenting our view on the issue, we also perused the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. reported in 349 ITR 309 (Bom.) wherein the Honble High Court held as under: 6) We have considered the submissions. We find that the submissions made by Mr. Pardiwalla on the basis of the decision of this Court in the matter of Paul Brothers (supra) and Director of Information Pvt. L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in ITA No.65/PUN/2015 dated 13-10-2017, the Pune Bench of the Tribunal observed as under : "6. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below. The first ground raised in appeal by assessee is with respect to assessee's eligibility for claiming deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee company was incorporated in the year 1991. The documents on record show that the assessee was granted STPI approval on 30-03-2000. Before grant of approval the assessee could not have claimed deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. The ld. AR has stated at the Bar that first year for claiming deduction u/s. 10A was assessment year 2001-02. Though....