The assessee was not satisfied as the assessing officer did not allow the depreciation which was subsequently claimed during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee in Cross Objection has challenged the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) in upholding the disallowance of claim of Rs.2, 57, 90,420/- made by the trust in respect of excess utilization made in the earlier years.
We find no merit in Revenue’s case for disregarding the gift of a house property by the assessee to her spouse prior to the transfer date (of the original asset) for the purpose of reckoning eligibility to exemption u/s.54F of the Act.
The power vested in the Commissioner to grant or not to grant approval is coupled with a duty. The Commissioner is required to apply his mind to the proposal put up to him for approval in the light of the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer.
In this case reasons recorded for reopening indicate is that cash deposits aggregating to Rs 10,24,100 have been made in the bank account of the assessee, but the mere fact that these deposits have been made in a bank account does not indicate that these deposits constitute an income which has escaped assessment.
The Second issue relates to additional depreciation of Rs. 4,98,859/-. Assessing officer has disallowed the balance additional depreciation claimed by assessee on the machinery installed in the second half of the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2007-08.
There is no restriction on allowing balance of one time incentive in the subsequent year if the provisions are constructed reasonably, liberally and purposive. One has to notice that additional benefit was intended to give impetus to industrialisation and in that direction the assessee deserves to get the benefit in full when there is no restriction in the statute to deny the benefit of balance 50% when the new plant and machinery was acquired and put to use for less than 180 days in the immediately preceding year.
Hon’ble ITAT Ahemdabad in the case of Nikunjkumar H.Jariwala v/s ITO in I.T.A. No. 2404/Ahd/2011 vide order dated 19/03/2015 has held that as per the mandate provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act, the AO was not justified in adopting the value of the property as adopted by the stamp valuation authority without referring to the DVO for ascertaining the fair market value of the property.
Hon’ble Delhi ITAT has in the case of ACIT V/s M/s Responsible Builders Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 2726/Del /2011 has held that it is trite law that in order to determine whether there are reasons to believe that the income got escaped the assessment, one has to look at the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
Contention of the Assessee- Provision of Sec. 40(a)(ia) shall apply only in respect of the amounts payable at the end of the year and shall not apply on the amounts actually paid by the appellant during the year.
The following disallowances were made by the AO by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act: – 1 Disallowance on account of transportation charges paid to M/s. Lalji Mulji – Rs. 1 ,59,386/- 2 Disallowance on account of export freight charges paid – Rs. 6, 17,830/ – 3 Disallowance on account of export freight paid to Indian agents of foreign shipping companies – Rs. 3,70,062/-
