2017 (12) TMI 1850

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing depreciation @ 100% on' hoardings treated as temporary structures as against the treatment given by the AO as plant and machinery allowing depreciation @ 15%. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing depreciation @100% on hoardings, which have been put to use for less than 180 days. 3.That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or all the time of hearing." 3. The Assessee is a company. It is engaged in the business of out-door advertisement. The assessee claimed depreciation at 100% on hoarding structures. Under part-A in Appendix-I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) under the head 'Tangible assets' entry (4) depr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R who relied on the order of the AO and submitted that under part-A in Appendix-I of the Rules, under the head ' Tangible assets' entry (4) depreciation at 100% on "Purely temporary erections such as wooden structure is allowed. According to him the hoardings in question cannot be regarded as purely temporary erection. In this regard the ld. DR filed before us policy guidelines on display of advertisements within the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Area wherein guidelines have laid down with regard to the size of the hoardings, structural design and erection of the hoardings structural stability certificate for erection of hoardings etc. These guidelines are meant to ensure that the hoardings do not fall injuring person or property. He laid e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Bus Shelters) for less than 180 days in Paragraph 3 on page 2 of the order. He allowed the balance 50% of the claim for depreciation of Rs.18,77,500/- on Hoarding Structures that was disallowed in A.Y. 2008-09 in paragraph 3 on page 3 of the order. 10. It is thus clear from the order of CIT(A) that the depreciation disallowed by the AO of Rs.57,73,114 was depreciation on hoardings and structures which were used for more than 180 days. Therefore there is no merit in ground No.2 raised by the revenue before us. 11. As far as Gr.No.1 raised by the revenue is concerned, the issue is fully covered against the revenue by the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Selvel Advertising Pvt. Ltd for A.Y.2005-06 in ITA No.820/Kol/2008 order ....