Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2025 (3) TMI 2205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ear 2015-16. All the appeals involve similar facts, grounds and issues. So, they were heard together. 2. Brief facts of the lead case i.e. ITA No.3566/Del/2024 are that the appellant/assessee e-filed return of income for the assessment year 2013-14. From the information available on record that assessee had made time deposits of Rs. 4,50,700/- and received interest of Rs. 28,30,150/- during assessment year 2013-14. There was reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs. 32,80,820/- has escaped assessment within the meaning under Section 147 of the Act. The case was reopened under Section 147 and notice dated 31.03.2021 under Section 148 of the Act was issued after recording reasons for reopening and obtaining prior approval from the Competent Authority. In response to notice, assessee did not submit his return of income within the stipulated time. Notice under Section 142 dated 22.11.2021 was issued. The case was transferred to NFAC assessment unit. The assessee submitted response on 12.01.2022 vide letter dated 26.11.2021 stating that notice under Section 148 of the Act could be issued within a period of six years from the end of relevant assessment year. The assessee has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... erred in initiating and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). General: That the appellant craves leave to add, alter and modify any of the grounds during the course of proceedings." 5. In ITA No.3565/Del/2024 for assessment year 2014-15, grounds of appeal are as under: "a. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is contrary to facts and bad in law. Therefore, the addition confirmed for INR 54,39,329 on account of disallowance of depreciation must be deleted. b. Addition of interest income relating to Business and Profession to Income from other sources amounting to Rs. 27,08,093/- The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has confirmed in making the assessment of income of INR 27,08,093 under the head "Other Sources instead of "Profits and gains of business or profession without appreciating the facts that the appellant has accurately declared the interest income under the Schedule BP. Snip attached in the appeal order is related to Part A- P&L and nothing but a replica of audited profit and loss account and to arrive at t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Ld. AO also erred while framing the assessment order and in taking the depreciation amounts from Part - AP&L amounting to INR 46,47,716. However, the correct source to compute taxable income and tax depreciation is Part B -TI read with Schedule BP line 37 of the income tax return which is INR 29,28,798. Even assessing officer while framing assessment order has computed the correct depreciation in accordance with the Income Tax Act. The assessment was completed in a hurry due to time barring limitation. c. Assessment becomes invalid u/s 147 and 148. d. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in charging interest and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act. e. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act f. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter and modify any of the grounds during the course of proceedings." 7. (i) On basis of ground no.2 in ITA No.3566, following issue arises: "(A)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d are as under: "(4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest income of Rs. 87,695/- included in Rs. 10,51,987/- shown as 'other income' by the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 32 AB of the I.T. Act, 1961? (5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that investment income amounting to 63,365/- shown by the assessee as other income was eligible for deduction u/s 32 AB of the I.T. Act 1961 even though the said income being interest received from the Bank on Short Term Fixed Deposit was assessable as income from other sources?" These questions arose in the backdrop of the factual situation that the respondent-assessee had to place certain funds as margin money in order to obtain the bank guarantee which was required by the State Government of Sikkim for the purpose of enabling the respondent-assessee to carry on the business of printing lottery tickets and for conducting lotteries on behalf of the State Government of Sikkim. The funds which were placed as margin money earned interest. The question....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....any additional investment. Therefore, holding that the time deposit of Rs. 4,50,700/- as unexplained is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, Issue no. B is decided in favour of the appellant/assessee. 15. Learned departmental representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that administrative expenses has been allowed in all further years under Section 148 except for the year under consideration (Refer page No.182, para 6.5 of the Paper Book). For ground related to disallowance of depreciation and in furtherance to ground no.2, the assessee had not abandoned the business and waiting for the improved market conditions and the assessee company is entitled to depreciation on the principle of passive use. In prior years, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, ITAT and Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of depreciation. Please refer copies of the orders at Page Nos. 175-178, 192-195, 165-174 of the Paper Book. (Reliance was placed on cases in CIT vs. Nahar Exports Ltd. [2008] 296 ITR 0419 (P&H), DCIT vs. Rapipay Finvest Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.161 & 162/Del/2019 and Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in the case of CIT vs. Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 0297. 1....