Depreciation on right to collect toll being infrastructure and not on toll road, where cost incurred for development and construction of infrastructure facility was a right in nature of intangible asset falling within purview of section 32(1)(ii). Order of AO in amortizing expenditure over period of facility and allowing the same was reversed. AO was, thus, directed to allow claim of assessee vis-a-vis depreciation on intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii).
If intention of Parliament was to include HUF prior to the said date then the amendment would have been carried out in respect of section 54B as well along with section 54. Therefore, amended provisions of section 54B were not applicable retrospectively and assessee-HUF was not entitled to exemption for the year under consideration.
Where specific charge for the levy of penalty was not mentioned in the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) and there was vagueness in the recording of satisfaction, the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed.
As assessee was not the owner of toll road, but had been given the right to develop, maintain and operate the toll road and to further collect the toll for the specified period, then this right was an intangible asset falling under section 32(1)(ii) and expenditure on development, construction and maintenance of infrastructure facility as incurred by the assessee was not revenue in nature and therefore, could be amortized.
This amount represents difference between the amount payable as shown in the books of account under the sales tax deferral scheme of Government of Maharashtra, availed by the company and that paid under the Pre- payment scheme on the basis of Net Present value of the amount due, as pe
Assessee is not in a position to recover the amounts paid as provident fund contribution for the respective contract laborers, or considering the business exigencies when the Assessee bears the expenses on account of Provident Fund contribution, then whether in such a situation the expenses can be disallowed?
Where assessee had sufficiently explained the circumstances under which the payments were made to the truck drivers in cash, for transport of items and no doubt was raised over genuineness of the payments and the payees were identifiable; no dis allowance under section. 40A(3) was warranted.
Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan In CIT Vs. Bank Rajasthan Ltd (supra) and had held that broken period interest is allowable as deduction. Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the claim of broken period interest of Rs.16,97,027/-. The ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is thus, allowed.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax -I, Pune dated 29-11-2013 rejecting the application of the assessee for grant of registration under section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
We do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rightly followed the law laid down in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. FR. Mullers Charitable Institutions (supra). The ld. DR could neither rebut the findings of First Appellate Authority nor any contrary judgment was brought to our notice. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal of the Department is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
