TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aipur,[in brevity 'the AO'] order passed u/s 143(3)of the Act. 2. The assessee has taken the following ground: "1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in not sustaining disallowance out of depreciation on dumper amounting to Rs. 1,33,697/- by not granting higher depreciation which was allowed in past assessment. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 16,70,400/-claimed as development charges. The disallowance so sustained is bad in law and bad on facts. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing deduction u/s 80IA claimed at Rs. 66,97,408/- for which application for admitting additional ground was raised before the ld.CIT(A). The Id. CIT(A) has erred in not considering such ground of appeal raised in appeal. 4. The ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd machinery related to assessee's business. The ld. AR invited our attention in the observation of the ld. CIT(A) in appeal order. Para 6.2 to 63 of the appeal order are duly reproduced as below: "6.2 The case laws relied on by the AO are applicable to the facts of the appellant's case. The Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of - Construction & Co. [1997] 90 taxman 175 (GAU.) has held that 'dumper' being a mechanical device for picking up things from somewhere for dumping elsewhere would come within expression 'earthmoving machinery', and are not road transport vehicle -Held, yes. Further, the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs Sardar Stones reported in [1995] 215 ITR 350 (Rajasthan) has held that &#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he requirement of the provision stands satisfied, in wake of such finding recorded by none other than the AO himself. 10. The CIT(A) has tried to non-suit the assessee on the ground that the subject dumper and Volvo do not fall within the expression of motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxies, as provided in Entry No. 111(3)(ii) of Part A of Appendix 1. It is pertinent to note that the depreciation for motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxies has been provided under the Head-III machinery and plant, wherein cl. (ii) of Entry No. 111(3) deals with the motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxies, while cl. 3(iii) concerns with commercial vehicles. As such, if the vehicles in question are not held to be falling in sub-cl. (ii) of cl. (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eas the UIT had not taken the development charges in view of the decision of Rajasthan High Court. The appellant has also admitted before the AO that the above payment has not been actually made to UIT, Udaipur However, the appellant has claimed development charges as expenditure. The AO has observed that since the payment has not been actually made, the same cannot be claimed as deduction. The observation of the AO is categorically held to be proper and genuine. Any expenditure can be claimed as deduction only when it is actually paid. Since the appellant has paid the development cost to UIT, Udaipur during the year under consideration, the disallowance of the same by the AO is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the issue in appeal order. The ld. AR invited our attention in appeal submission page 12 where the assessee submitted on dated 08.03.2018 for permission for raising the addition ground of appeal before the ld. CIT(A). So, the ground nos. 3 and 4 are remained un-adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. 5. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of revenue authorities. The ld. DR was unable to submit any contrary judgment against the submission of the assessee. 6. We heard the rival submission and consider the documents available in the record. The ground no. 1 related to claim of depreciation @ 30% is duly covered by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Jodhpur and the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Amar S....