AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1900
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct"), pertaining to the assessment year 2005-06. 2. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following Grounds of Appeal:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation under section 32(i)(ii) @ 25% of Rs. 9,37,42,685/- to the assessee while withdrawing the deduction of Rs. 7,33,36,186/- allowed by the Assessing Officer by spreading over the construction cost of infrastructure facility over the toll collection period. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that right to collect toll is an intangible asset under section 32(i)(ii) of the Act and the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction under section 35DD of Rs. 23,00,000/-, when the payment was towards "Duty" and was covered by the provision of section 43B of the Act. 8. The order of the learned CIT(A), Nashik may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 9. Appellant craves, leaves to add, amend/alter/amend any grounds of appeal." 3. In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction, trading of construction material, developing and maintaining infrastructure facility and hiring of machinery equipments, vehicles and assets. For the assessment year 2005- 06 it filed a return of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d instead allowed deduction for the proportionate cost of construction of the infrastructure facility, spread over the toll collection periods. The CIT(A), however, following the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2004-05 vide ITA No.1302/PN/2009 dated 20.03.2012 allowed the claim of the assessee for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Aggrieved with the said action of the CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. It was a common point between the parties that the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2004-05 (supra) as well as assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No.945/PM/2011 dated 30.07.2012 are in favour of the assessee, which continue to hold the field and have no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er considering the orders of the authorities below, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) inasmuch as disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. In the absence of any specific evidence of personal or non-business use, ad-hoc disallowances are not maintainable. Thus, the order of the CIT(A) is hereby affirmed and Revenue fails on the Ground of Appeal No. 4 also. 9. In Grounds of Appeal Nos. 5 to 7, issue relates to the action of the CIT(A) in allowing assessee's claim for deduction u/s 35DD of the Act for Rs. 23,00,000/-. By way of Ground of Appeal Nos. 5 and 6, the plea of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in admitting such claim of deduction which was not made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is entitled to raise before the appellate authorities additional grounds in terms of additional claims not made in the return filed by it. In holding so, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had duly considered the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (supra), which has been relied by the Revenue before us, and therefore, we find no error in the part of the CIT(A) in admitting the impugned Additional Ground of Appeal based on the parity of reasoning laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, Ground of Appeal Nos. 5 and 6 are dismissed. 12. In the last Ground of Appeal, the plea of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the ass....