TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1904
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2014-15 respectively. These appeals of the assessee are having common facts and grounds, therefore, with the consent of parties, both these appeals are clubbed and heard together and being decided by this consolidated order. For appreciation of facts, we take ITA No. 92/Ran/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 as a lead case. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not allowing depreciation u/s 32(1)(i) of Act @ 15% on "Plant and Machinery"- project Road forming part of block of assets. 2. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1, as an alternative claim, the Appellant prays that depreciation u/s 32(1)(i) of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the year and justify the amount of depreciation claimed as plant @ 15%. The assessee was asked to submit as to why the total cost of project road constructed and capitalized under the head 'fixed assets' during the year should not be amortized evenly over the concessionaire period in the light of tripartite agreement with Government of Jharkhand and in the light of CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2014 on clarification regarding treatment of expenditure incurred for development of roads/highways under Build, Own and Transfer (BOT) agreements. 3. In response to the above query, the assessee submitted all the details and also produced books of account and were duly examined by the Assessing Officer. The assessee also placed reliance on vari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny other person authorized by the government and not with the appellant. 5. The ld. CIT(A) also did not agree with the alternative submission of the assessee that the road project may be treated either as building or as a intangible asset because if the road project is treated as plant and machinery then depreciation @ of 15% will be allowed and if the road project is treated as building then deprecation @ of 10% should be allowed and if it is treated as intangible asset as an alternative claim, then depreciation @ 25% may be allowed. 6. The ld. CIT(A) also rejected the various case laws on which the appellant had placed reliance on the ground that the cases are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 7. Aggrieved by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T and annuity basis. The appellant also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. GVK Jaipur Expressway (2018) 100 taxmann.com 96 (SC)/(2018) 259 Taxman 429 (SC) dated 05/10/2018 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had allowed depreciation on different roads treating the same as building @ 10%. 10. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue has supported the orders of the lower authorities. 11. We have considered the above submission and it is found and duly confirmed by the ld. CIT-DR that from the A.Y. 2015-16, the claim of the assessee has been accepted by the revenue and the depreciation has been allowed @ 10% treating the same as building. Thus, we also hold that the assessee/ap....