Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,, New Delhi DCIT, New Delhi

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI)
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA Nos:- 365/Del/2013 and 1138/Del/2013,
(Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10)

Bharat Heavy Electricals
Limited,
New Delhi.
PAN No: AAACB4146P
APPELLANT 

Vs.

Dy. CIT,
Circle- 2(1),
Delhi.
RESPONDENT

ITA Nos:- 5416/Del/2014 and 5607/Del/2016
(Assessment Years: 2010-11 and 2012-13)

Bharat Heavy Electricals
Limited,
New Delhi.
PAN No: AAACB4146P
APPELLANT 

Vs.

Dy. CIT,
Circle- 2(1),
Delhi.
RESPONDENT

Assessee By : Shri V. Rajkumar, Adv.
Revenue By : Shri Prakash Dube, Sr. DR

Per Anadee Nath Misshra, AM

(A) The aforementioned appeals in the case of the Assessee are taken up together for
the sake of convenience and brevity; and are hereby disposed off through this

Consolidated Order. Grounds taken in these appeals of Assessee are as under:

ITA No. 365/Del/2012

“1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of the claim of provisions for bad & doubtful debts amounting to Rs.90,12,00,000 as per Schedule 17, treating the same as hot ascertained liability and ignoring the ratio of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 0166.

2(a) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of depreciation on loose tools amounting to Rs.48,67,394 ignoring the fact that the assessing officer has treated the expenditure on loose tools as capital expenditure in earlier years and added the same to taxable income.

2(b) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case ignoring the fact that the assessing officer taxed the expenditure on loose tools twice i.e. in the year in which the same were treated as capital expenditure and also disallowing the depreciation on loose tools.

2(c) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case ignoring the fact that assessing officer took two' different stands by treating the loose tools as capital expenditure and not allowing depreciation on this.

3(a) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition Rs. 3,17,00,000 on account of change in accounting policy which was consistently followed.

To know more in details find the attachemnt file