Full Text
Translation output
'anuaneu eql
Jo leadde aql
Jo lessnusrp olul bulllnsar leunqtrf xef aruof,ul aq]
Aq
LlllM lleap uaaq seLl
(V)UC
Jo lapJo aq1
',,6urpllnq,. aql
6uurnbce uo slsoo se paleaJl aq plnoM pue slsof, uorlrsrnbce eql;o yed ulJoJ plnoM l!
'f,CJ-I ulo4 uollednoco ur
Alado.rd
",..11Jo uotltstnbre larye pled aq ol peq lunoule ptesaJoJe eL{l aluts leql plaL{ sem lI
'uodnaleql uotletf,aldap pue
6ugpl;nq
Jo lsof, aLll u! lunoLue p!esaroJe aql apnlf,ur ol aassassv aL{l paMolle
(V)ftf
'leadde uI
'aassassv aql
Aq paugelf, se uorlercardap
;o asodlnd
"ql roJ papnlou! aq lou plnol lunouie slL.ll llnsal e se
'pannol;e
1ou sem uodnalaql uotlf,nJlsuof, uotJeztJoLllneun
'ero;araq1
'pue
,,6urp;rnq.. eql ol sJsof, se paleaJl aq lou plnof, ll teLll punor6 eql uo slql paMolles!p raf,UJO
6urssessy eql
'uotl3nrlsuoc
/uorledncro pezrroqtneun ule1.taf, roJ saEeutep/fi;euad
Jo
Aenn
Aq fhlqN ol se6leqc presaJoJe eq1
Aed o1 uodn pallpo seM aossassv eql
'JqlI' uto.r;
Ayado.rd ples aqt burseqund laly
'tg-togz. leaA luaulssasse
'a't uotJeleptsuo3
Japun reaA aq1
6upnp elpul
Jo
'l^og
1o
Aorlod luaullsa^ulslp aql rapun
3CIJ uorJ elqsrue) leloH
Jo uorlrstnbce
;o slsof, aql ul
'fNCN ur luaulled
1o tulo; aq1 ur aassasse aql
Aq papuadxe sean qllqM
-/EZt'tL'gg'su
Jo rlns e
Jo uotsnloul aLll ol suleuad anss! lsru aL{I
';eedde slql ul paster are sanss! oMI
XEI t#
* ffi
'1uel1eddy
JoJ salef,o^pv
'
'rl6u!S eLlsnuv
'sN
L.lllM
'ildec auJof,ul
JoJ lasunoo burpuels
Jotuas
'rq1edr.r1 r.r.rednuy
'.161
:luasaJd a
.-
Llt
I
ITOZ'LO'IT olo
2011:DHC:14845-DB
?
D
?_-
In this appeal preferred against the order of the Tribunal, it is not disputed that such an amount can be treated as .part of consideration for acquisition of property/ building and, therefore, can be included in the said costs for the purpose of depreciation. However, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that since the amount was paid by way of penalty/ damages for unauthorized occupation/ construction, such an amount had to be disalloweci as the payment was made for some purported offence committed and/or. for violating the provision of law, namely NDMC Act and Building Byelaws in the instant case.
The fact remains that it is not the assessee who had committed any such violation. After the property was purchased from the ITDC in auction and when the assessee approached the NDMC for mutation of the said property in' its name, at that stage NDMC raised the aforesaid demand which pertains to the alleged violation for the period when the aforesaid hotel property was with ITDC.
In these circumstances, we are of the view that the aforesaid contention of the
Revenue is totally misconceived and provisions Explanation to Section 37 of the
Act would not be applicable in these circumstances.
Since the issue pertains to depreciation which has been allowed by CIT(A) as well as ITA at 600lo on computers and UPSs holding that the same is an integral part of computers and, therefore, higher depreciation is allowed.
This issue has been set at rest by this Court in CIT vs. ESES Yamuna
Powers Limited (ITA No. L267 of 2010 dated 31't August, 2010). l'
-r
.\
W€, thus, are of the opinion that no question of law much less
I substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
WI
R/r. srrRr,:.
4a^&!., B
JrduLY 14' zoLL M.L. MEHTA, J.
./-
Jo leadde aql
Jo lessnusrp olul bulllnsar leunqtrf xef aruof,ul aq]
Aq
LlllM lleap uaaq seLl
(V)UC
Jo lapJo aq1
',,6urpllnq,. aql
6uurnbce uo slsoo se paleaJl aq plnoM pue slsof, uorlrsrnbce eql;o yed ulJoJ plnoM l!
'f,CJ-I ulo4 uollednoco ur
Alado.rd
",..11Jo uotltstnbre larye pled aq ol peq lunoule ptesaJoJe eL{l aluts leql plaL{ sem lI
'uodnaleql uotletf,aldap pue
6ugpl;nq
Jo lsof, aLll u! lunoLue p!esaroJe aql apnlf,ur ol aassassv aL{l paMolle
(V)ftf
'leadde uI
'aassassv aql
Aq paugelf, se uorlercardap
;o asodlnd
"ql roJ papnlou! aq lou plnol lunouie slL.ll llnsal e se
'pannol;e
1ou sem uodnalaql uotlf,nJlsuof, uotJeztJoLllneun
'ero;araq1
'pue
,,6urp;rnq.. eql ol sJsof, se paleaJl aq lou plnof, ll teLll punor6 eql uo slql paMolles!p raf,UJO
6urssessy eql
'uotl3nrlsuoc
/uorledncro pezrroqtneun ule1.taf, roJ saEeutep/fi;euad
Jo
Aenn
Aq fhlqN ol se6leqc presaJoJe eq1
Aed o1 uodn pallpo seM aossassv eql
'JqlI' uto.r;
Ayado.rd ples aqt burseqund laly
'tg-togz. leaA luaulssasse
'a't uotJeleptsuo3
Japun reaA aq1
6upnp elpul
Jo
'l^og
1o
Aorlod luaullsa^ulslp aql rapun
3CIJ uorJ elqsrue) leloH
Jo uorlrstnbce
;o slsof, aql ul
'fNCN ur luaulled
1o tulo; aq1 ur aassasse aql
Aq papuadxe sean qllqM
-/EZt'tL'gg'su
Jo rlns e
Jo uotsnloul aLll ol suleuad anss! lsru aL{I
';eedde slql ul paster are sanss! oMI
XEI t#
* ffi
'1uel1eddy
JoJ salef,o^pv
'
'rl6u!S eLlsnuv
'sN
L.lllM
'ildec auJof,ul
JoJ lasunoo burpuels
Jotuas
'rq1edr.r1 r.r.rednuy
'.161
:luasaJd a
.-
Llt
I
ITOZ'LO'IT olo
2011:DHC:14845-DB
?
D
?_-
In this appeal preferred against the order of the Tribunal, it is not disputed that such an amount can be treated as .part of consideration for acquisition of property/ building and, therefore, can be included in the said costs for the purpose of depreciation. However, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that since the amount was paid by way of penalty/ damages for unauthorized occupation/ construction, such an amount had to be disalloweci as the payment was made for some purported offence committed and/or. for violating the provision of law, namely NDMC Act and Building Byelaws in the instant case.
The fact remains that it is not the assessee who had committed any such violation. After the property was purchased from the ITDC in auction and when the assessee approached the NDMC for mutation of the said property in' its name, at that stage NDMC raised the aforesaid demand which pertains to the alleged violation for the period when the aforesaid hotel property was with ITDC.
In these circumstances, we are of the view that the aforesaid contention of the
Revenue is totally misconceived and provisions Explanation to Section 37 of the
Act would not be applicable in these circumstances.
Since the issue pertains to depreciation which has been allowed by CIT(A) as well as ITA at 600lo on computers and UPSs holding that the same is an integral part of computers and, therefore, higher depreciation is allowed.
This issue has been set at rest by this Court in CIT vs. ESES Yamuna
Powers Limited (ITA No. L267 of 2010 dated 31't August, 2010). l'
-r
.\
W€, thus, are of the opinion that no question of law much less
I substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
WI
R/r. srrRr,:.
4a^&!., B
JrduLY 14' zoLL M.L. MEHTA, J.
./-
JUDGMENT