TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 527
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"]. The order dated 31.07.2020, thus, concerns the following AYs: AY 2010-11, AY 2011-12, AY 2012-13, AY 2013-14 (the AY in issue) and AY 2014-15, 1.2 Pertinently, via this order, as noticed above, the Tribunal has disposed of appeals concerning other AYs also, appeals concerning these AYs are listed on our board today as well. 2. Mr Abhishek Maratha, senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, informs us that the following issues arise for consideration: (i) First, whether the Tribunal was correct in sustaining the deletion of addition made on account of disallowance of license fee amounting to Rs. 1,17,83,98,395/-? (ii) Second, whether....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e aspect pertaining to satisfaction concerning the AY in issue and other concerned AYs, has stated the following: 6.0.1 We also note that although the Ld. CIT-DR has submitted that the issue of recording the satisfaction has to be examined ever year and that there is no res-judicata in Income Tax proceedings, all the same, a perusal of the Asst. orders for the years under appeal shows that the Assessing Officer has made identical observations in all the years under appeal and in all the years the factum of recording of satisfaction is completely absent. We also note that the assessee had made suo moto disallowances in the years under appeal as under: 2010-11 Rs. 11,52,656/- 2011-12 Rs. 10,02,954/- 2012-13....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ached by the Tribunal required interference. In this regard, Mr Maratha sought to place reliance on the order passed by the AO. 7.1 According to Mr Maratha, the assets in issue i.e., energy saving and pollution control devices had to be put to use for a claim of depreciation. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the assessment order on which Mr Maratha placed reliance is extracted hereafter: "5.2 The submissions of the assessee have been carefully considered. The disallowance of depreciation on Pollution Controlling Equipment was made in the preceding years by my predecessors giving elaborate reasons for such disallowances. The reasons cited are as under:- "The submission made by the assessee only establish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for the claim, it should be able to serve the purpose of moving and transporting the people, goods etc. A car if it has not been able to move and transport then it is not a car though may be called so. Similarly the so called pollution controlling assets have either not been put to use or they are not the pollution controlling assets. Therefore, the claim of depreciation mode by the assessee in respect of the said assets does not get established." [Emphasis is ours] 8. A careful perusal of the above paragraph would show the AO has asked himself the wrong question and, therefore, reached, in our view, an erroneous conclusion. 8.1 What is evident (something which even Mr Maratha does not dispute), is that the assets on which ....