TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act'] for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring loss of Rs. 8,77,19,306/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 52,38,91,800/- under the normal provisions of the Act and Rs. 3,53,40,438/- under section 115JB of the Act inter alia making addition of Rs. 60,86,81,068/- on account of repurchase of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB). The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the assessee partly allowed the appeal and held tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 crore being relief given by appellate authority, in the absence of any specific finding given by appellate authority to reduce said relief from cost of assets II. That Worthy CIT(A)-3, erred in law & on facts in not directing the assessing officer, not to reduce the claim of depreciation of the appellant by Rs. 7,69,90,741/- while giving the appeal effect to the appellate order, in the absence of any specific directions given by worthy CIT(A) Ludhiana in its order. Directions be given not to reduce the claim of depreciation of the appellant by Rs. 7,69,90,741/-. III. That Worthy CIT(A)-3, further erred in law & on facts by upholding the wrong computation of disallowance of depreciation which was computed by Adjusting incorrect figur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... crores as revenue receipt. However, the AO while giving effect to the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) computed the income/loss of the company by reducing the amount of Rs. 41.83 crores exceeding the jurisdiction and further reducing the amount of depreciation of Rs. 7.69 crores in spite of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) had not issued any such direction. Against the said findings, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has upheld the action of the AO. The Ld. counsel further contended that as per the settled law while giving effect to the appellate order, the AO has to strictly follow the direction of the order passed by the concerned authority, therefore the AO has no jurisdiction to travel beyond direction given by the Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee in respect of the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 60.87 crores to the extent of Rs. 41.83 crores holding as under:- "Since I have already highlighted as to how the funds to the tune of Rs. 102.71 crore had been used for the purpose of capital expenditure and funds to the tune of Rs. 41.84 crores had been used for the working capital requirements, the taxability of the gain of Rs. 60.87 crores would also be done proportionately in the same ratio. In the circumstances out of total gain of 60.87 crores an amount of Rs. 19.03 crores is held to be taxable and rest of the amount i.e. 41.83 crores is not taxable. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is therefore confirmed to the tune of Rs. 19.03 crores." 8. As contended by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on pro rata basis depending on the WDV of the said Block. 4.5 While agitating the general effect order, the assessee has not any detail submission or any documentary evidence, which contradicts the action of the assessing officer in disallowing the depreciation claimed by the appellant. Further the appellant has also failed to submit any details of Block of fixed assets for which the appellant has invested a sum of Rs. 41.83 cr. contradicting the view of the AO. Looking to the facts of the case, no interference in called for in the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the depreciation to the extent of Rs. 7,69,90,741/. Accordingly, grounds of appeal no. 1, 2 and 3 stands dismissed." 9. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel, the AO ....