Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.24 seconds)Section 119 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax -10, Mumbai on 5 May, 2015
19. Coming back to another argument of the learned counsel for
the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee, in light of the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max
India Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 166 Taxman 188 (SC) has argued that, at
the time when the A.O. passed the assessment order on the issue
of cost incurred for development of BOT roads, whether it is an
intangible asset giving rise to collection of toll revenue in the
nature of a license or franchise or any other commercial or
business right of similar nature, in our considered view, although
there are divergent views on these issues from various Benches of
the Tribunal, including the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in
31
ITA No.612/Hyd/2024
BSCPL Aurang Tollway Limited
the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the assessee,
including the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case
of ACIT vs. Progressive Constructions Ltd. (2018) taxmann.com
104, wherein it has been held that, the expenditure incurred by
the assessee for construction of road under BOT contract had
given rise to an intangible asset as defined under Explanation 3(b)
read with Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and
the assessee would be eligible to claim deduction, but the fact
remains that although the Tribunal has taken a view in favour of
the assessee and held that, the cost incurred for development
of toll road is in the nature of franchise, license or any other
business or commercial rights of similar nature falling within the
purview of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, but the Hon'ble Bombay
High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Limited vs.
CIT (supra) and CIT vs. West Gujarat Expressway Limited 82
taxmann.com 224 has clearly held that, the expenditure incurred
for development of toll road on BOT basis is not an intangible
asset and the assessee cannot claim depreciation as per Section
32(1)(ii) of the Act.
Acit, Circle-16(2), Hyd, Hyderabad vs Progressive Constructions Limited., ... on 14 February, 2017
19. Coming back to another argument of the learned counsel for
the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee, in light of the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max
India Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 166 Taxman 188 (SC) has argued that, at
the time when the A.O. passed the assessment order on the issue
of cost incurred for development of BOT roads, whether it is an
intangible asset giving rise to collection of toll revenue in the
nature of a license or franchise or any other commercial or
business right of similar nature, in our considered view, although
there are divergent views on these issues from various Benches of
the Tribunal, including the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in
31
ITA No.612/Hyd/2024
BSCPL Aurang Tollway Limited
the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the assessee,
including the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case
of ACIT vs. Progressive Constructions Ltd. (2018) taxmann.com
104, wherein it has been held that, the expenditure incurred by
the assessee for construction of road under BOT contract had
given rise to an intangible asset as defined under Explanation 3(b)
read with Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and
the assessee would be eligible to claim deduction, but the fact
remains that although the Tribunal has taken a view in favour of
the assessee and held that, the cost incurred for development
of toll road is in the nature of franchise, license or any other
business or commercial rights of similar nature falling within the
purview of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, but the Hon'ble Bombay
High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Limited vs.
CIT (supra) and CIT vs. West Gujarat Expressway Limited 82
taxmann.com 224 has clearly held that, the expenditure incurred
for development of toll road on BOT basis is not an intangible
asset and the assessee cannot claim depreciation as per Section
32(1)(ii) of the Act.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 5 September, 2019
BSCPL Aurang Tollway Limited
Therefore, the Ld. PCIT was right in holding that such assessment
order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the
Revenue. This legal principle is supported by the decision of
the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories
Limited vs. CIT (supra) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Celebi Delhi Cargo India
Private Limited (supra). A similar view has been taken by the ITAT,
Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of Agilisys IT Services India (P.)
M/S Midwest Granite (P) Limited, , ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 5 November, 2014
In the present case, there is no
dispute with regard to the fact that the A.O. has passed the
assessment order without taking into consideration the mandatory
Circular issued by the CBDT on the issue of allowance of cost
incurred for development of BOT roads and therefore, in our
considered view, it is a case of lack of inquiry by the A.O. on the
issue, in light of the relevant provisions of the Act and thus, the
arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee in light of
30
ITA No.612/Hyd/2024
BSCPL Aurang Tollway Limited
certain judicial pronouncements, including the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. V-Con
Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the decision of
the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Spectra
Shares and Scrips Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) and the decision of
the ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Kerala Transport
Development Finance Corporation Ltd. vs. PCIT in ITA
No.443/Coch/2023 dated 15.07.2025 is devoid of merit and
cannot be accepted.
The Companies Act, 1956
Engineering Analysis Centre Of ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 2 March, 2021
Ltd. Vs. CIT, wherein it has been clearly held that, when a
Circular is issued under Section 119 and the same is binding on
the A.O., not taking recourse thereto and passing the assessment
order amounts to making the assessment without conducting
proper enquiry and investigation.
West Gujarat Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit 14(3)(2), Mumbai on 26 May, 2017
13. The learned counsel for the assessee, further referring to
various judicial precedents, including the decisions of ITAT
Mumbai Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Mumbai Nasik Expressway
Limited in ITA No. 3910/Mum/2017 dated 15.04.2019 and the
decision in the case of ITO Vs. Andhra Pradesh Expressway
Limited in ITA No. 1522/Mum/2023 dated 25.08.2023 submitted
19
ITA No.612/Hyd/2024
BSCPL Aurang Tollway Limited
that, the Tribunal has consistently taken a view and held that, the
expenditure incurred for development of toll road on a BOT basis
gives rise to an intangible asset in the form of right to collect toll
revenue and the same falls within the purview of intangible asset,
as per Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee,
on the basis of one possible view, has treated the cost incurred for
development of toll road as capital expenditure and the same has
been treated as intangible asset in the books of accounts and
depreciation has been claimed under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act.
The A.O., after considering relevant documents, has rightly
considered the submissions of the assessee and passed the
assessment order. Therefore, he submitted that, the assessment
order passed by the A.O. is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to
the interest of the Revenue. Thus, the Ld. PCIT has erred in
setting aside the assessment order in terms of Section 263 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961.
M/S. The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala ... on 10 February, 2000
16. We have heard both the parties, perused the material
available on record and had gone through the orders of the
authorities below. We have also considered the relevant case laws
referred to by the learned counsel for the assessee in support of
his arguments and also the Ld. CIT-DR present for the Revenue
in support of his contentions. The provisions of Section 263 deal
with the revisionary powers of the Ld. PCIT and as per Section
263 of the Act, the Ld. PCIT may call for and examine the record of
24
ITA No.612/Hyd/2024
BSCPL Aurang Tollway Limited
any proceedings under the Act, and if, he considers that, the
assessment order passed by the A.O. is erroneous and insofar as
it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, he may, after giving
the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or
causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass
such order thereon cancelling the assessment and directing a
fresh assessment. In other words, if the Ld. PCIT is satisfied that,
the twin conditions embedded therein are fulfilled, i.e. firstly, the
order of the A.O. is erroneous and secondly, it is prejudicial to the
interest of the Revenue, then he may set aside the order passed by
the A.O. and direct the A.O. to re-examine the issue and pass an
appropriate order. This legal principle is supported by various
judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000)
243 ITR 83, wherein it has been clearly held that, an order
passed without application of mind or without proper inquiry is
erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the
purpose of Section 263 of the Act.