2013 (6) TMI 907

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... arises out of the order passed under section 143(3), read with section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal for the assessment year 2007-08 arises out of the regular assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act. 2. First we will consider the appeal filed for the assessment year 2004-05. 3. The only ground raised by the Revenue in the present appeal is that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has erred in allowing depreciation at ₹ 1,26,98,253/- on stone bunds by holding that stone bunds are not an identifiable asset by itself eligible for depreciation at a different rate than the rate applicable to salt pans. It is the case of the Revenue that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has failed to note that as pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....field for easy cultivation of salt. He also found that stone bunds are made up of stones and clay and they form an integral part of salt pans, which protect the salt pans from erosion through tidal or by storm water. He has also made a finding that production of salt from salt pans is not possible without stone bunds. Accordingly, he held that stone bunds are part and parcel of the salt pans and they cannot by themselves be an identifiable independent asset to claim depreciation at a different rate than the rate applicable to salt pans. In order to keep the water at the required level for the purpose of producing salt, salt pan contoured by a stone bund is very much essential. Therefore, he held that the stone bunds should be taken as part ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal filed by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed. 8. Next we will consider the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2007-08. 9. The only ground raised by the Revenue in the present appeal is that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition made under section 2(22)(e) of the Act towards the loan received from M/s. Goodearth Maritime Ltd. at ₹ 81 lakhs and from M/s. Archean Granites Pvt. Ltd. at ₹ 1,02,00,000/-. It is the case of the Revenue that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) have been rightly invoked by the Assessing Officer especially in the light of the fact that the money received by the assessee from these companies are shown in the balance sheet as "unsecured loans". ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refore, on this ground alone, it is not possible to treat the amount of loan received from M/s. Archean Granites Pvt. Ltd. as dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. This ground raised by the Revenue fails. 11. Regarding the account with M/s. Goodearth Maritime Ltd., we agree with the finding of the Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals) that it is a running account maintained by the assessee. The nomenclature given to a particular outstanding balance in the account statement of the assessee is not a conclusive proof to establish the real character of that amount. The fact that the amount payable to M/s. Goodearth Maritime Ltd. was shown by the assessee in the balance sheet as "unsecured loan" does not mean that the outstanding balance w....