$ 18&19 * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 917/2017, CM APPL.39179-39180/2017 ITA 918/2017, CM APPL.39106-39107/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-2... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Advocate. versus CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA ORDER % 31.10.2017 1. Revenue urges four questions in its appeal under Section 260A. first relates to addition on account of sums received upon encashment of bank guarantees. ITAT held that such additions were unjustified because income could not be approved as dispute is pending litigation and final adjudication before Court. 2. This Court is of opinion that reasoning of ITAT is in accord with sound principles and previous judgments. No question of law arises on this score. 3. second question urged is with respect to depreciation of claim in respect of assets not registered in name of assessee. Here ITAT factually found that assessee had paid all amounts to transferor and had obtained possession. assessee was also using premises for its business purposes. determination of this question is, therefore, essentially factual. No question of law arises. ITA 917&918/2017 Page 1 4. third question relates to exemption under Section 80IA. exemption claimed for Inland Container Depot (ICD), Container Freight Station (CFS) and rolling stock. Here again Revenue s contentions were rejected for previous years in Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. ACIT, 346 ITR 140. So far as rolling stock is concerned, ITAT has relied upon its previous ruling. 5. last question urged is with respect to amortized depreciation. ITAT correctly, in our opinion, applied Section 32 of Income Tax Act, 1978. No question of law, therefore, arises. 6. In ITA 918/2017, additional question urged is with respect to depreciation of land to tune of `2,59,12,954/-. ITAT was of opinion that lower authority had not considered applicability of Section 32(1)(ii) and, therefore, remitted matter for fresh consideration. Accordingly, no ground to interfere with remit order arises. 7. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in these appeals; they are accordingly dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J OCTOBER 31, 2017 /vikas/ ITA 917&918/2017 Page 2 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-2 v. Container Corporation of India Ltd