2015 (2) TMI 1355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee is in the business of development of infrastructural facilities and developed a bye-pass road / bridge in Coimbatore. The assessee has claimed depreciation on road/ bridge. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has held that the assessee is not entitled for depreciation on road/bridge since the assessee itself amortized the cost of the road/bridge over the construction period of 30/20 years and denied the claim of the assessee. 3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), by following the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05 & 2006- 07 in I.T.A. Nos. 1692 to 1695/Mds/2010 dated 30.11.2010, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aim of depreciation on the basis of elaborate discussion made by him in the order for the assessment year 2006-07. During the course of assessment proceedings in the assessment year 2006- 07 after analyzing various factors and also taking into account all the objections raised by the assessee, it was held by the Assessing Officer that the assessee is not the owner of the project assets, as such is not eligible for claiming depreciation of such assets. However, taking into account the fact that the entire cost of the project has to be borne by the assessee and such cost has to be recovered from the users of the project by way of toll fees prescribed by the government, the entire cost was amortized over the period of concession. So, as the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. AR by stating that "the assessee has also objected stating that the Tribunal in the case of Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Ltd. has allowed the assessee's claim of depreciation. However, an appeal has been filed in the High Court against the Tribunal order". It is clear from the above that the only reason for non-acceptance of the decision is that the Department has not accepted the above decision and appeal has been filed against the order in the High Court. The Hon'ble ITAT in the above case in I.T.A. No.2082/Mds/2008 & 817/Mds/2007 for A.Ys. 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively has held as under: "after the Asst. Year 1988-89 all the Appendices have the note that building would include roads. Therefore, in our view, the asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hus pleaded that since the issue is covered in favour of the assessee, therefore, all the appeals filed by the Department should be dismissed and to this move of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the ld. DR could not controvert this factual aspect that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by earlier decision of the Tribunal vide order dated 24.10.2008, but he relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and pleaded for deciding the appeals accordingly. 6. We have heard both the sides, considered the material on record as well as precedent relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and find that the main contention raised in all appeals of the Department is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing depreciation on ....