TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....678 of 2009. Challenging the order passed in I.T.A.No.817/Mds/2007 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Chennai, the Revenue has filed the appeal in T.C.A.No.679 of 2009. Challenging the order passed in I.T.A.No.660/Mds/2009 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "D" Bench, Chennai, the Revenue has filed the appeal in T.C.A.No.446 of 2010. Challenging the order passed in I.T.A.No.661/Mds/2009 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "D" Bench, Chennai, the Revenue has filed the appeal in T.C.A.No.447 of 2010. 2.The assessee is engaged in the business of improvement and development of roads. The assessee claimed depreciation on roads in the category of plant and machinery. The Assessing Officer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench of this Court in the judgment made in T.C.A.Nos.220 to 225 of 2018 dated 19.01.2021 [The Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3, Chennai-34 Vs. M/s.Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Ltd., Chennai - 600 028] wherein the Division Bench held as follows: "... 12.Next, we take up for consideration the issue pertaining to the claim for depreciation on the roads, which have been developed and maintained by the assessee pursuant to the agreement entered into with the State Government. 13.The assessee is a joint venture company formed by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited and the Tidel Park for creation of infrastructural facility such as road systems, highways, bridge system by bringi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeals and in doing so, followed its earlier decision dated 24.10.2008 in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively made in ITA.Nos.2082/Mds/2008 and 817/Mds/2007. In paragraph 6 of the impugned common order, the said decision of the Tribunal has been referred to. 17.The learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue has contended that the said decision of the Tribunal has not been accepted by the Revenue and an appeal has been filed before this Court against the same. In fact, such a submission was made before the Tribunal, when the Tribunal heard the present appeals. However, there was no material produced by the Revenue before the Tribunal to show that the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Standing Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Moradabad Toll Road Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [reported in (2014) 52 Taxmann. com 21] to support the proposition that toll road would not qualify as a plant so as to entitle the assessee a higher rate of depreciation. 21.In the instant case, the assessee has not challenged the decision of the CIT(A) or that of the Tribunal granting depreciation at the rate of 10%. Therefore, we are not required to decide as to whether the assessee is entitled to a higher rate of depreciation. What is required to be decided in the instant case is as to whether the CIT(A) and the Tribunal were right in holding that the development done by the assessee by form....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... argued by the assessee before the Assessing Officer by claiming it as plant and machinery. However, since the assessee is not on appeal against the said finding, we are of the view that the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd., does not advance the case of the Revenue before us. 24.On this issue, it would be beneficial to refer to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. GVK Jaipur Expressway Ltd. [reported in (2018) 100 Taxmann.com 95]. This decision was rendered by the Court on 10.10.2017, which was much after the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd., which was rendered on 14.10.2014. 25.In the decision of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmed. 26.The special leave petition filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of GVK Jaipur Expressway Ltd., was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in (2018) 100 Taxmann.com 96. 27.So far as decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. is concerned, the said decision was followed in the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-10 Vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. [reported in (2017) 82 Taxmann.com 224] and the appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed against which, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has been entertained, leave granted and tagged with other appeals, which are pendin....