आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में , हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच , हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad , , श्री विजय पाल राि माननीय उपाध्यक्ष एिं श्री मंजूनाथ जी माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDEN AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.508/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14)

M/s. TN(DK) Express Ways Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Limited, of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

PAN : AACCT5634J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Assessee C.A.

Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran –

Department Represented by CIT-DR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 06.08.2025 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : 17.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R

PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :

This appeal filed by the assessee company is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Hyderabad, dated 30.11.2016 and pertains to the assessment year

2013-14.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in the instant appeal :

“1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts and in law by confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards 'disallowance of provision for periodic maintenance' and 'disallowance of excess depreciation'.

2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 5,90,50,000/-

made A.O, towards 'disallowance of provision for periodic maintenance.

3. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Appellant is under obligation to carry out repairs and refurbishment of tolling system and hardware and other equipment for every five years and carry out major maintenance work, for which huge expenditure is required to be incurred throughout the concessionaire period of 20 years.

4. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the matching principle concept in respect of provision for the year under consideration as the need for incurring the expenditure arises over a period of time.

5. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Appellant is following the significant accounting policies viz., mandatory accounting standards (AS) issued under Companies Accounting Standard Rules, 2006 and relevant provisions of Companies Act, 1956.

6. The Ld.CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Appellant has prepared financial statements under the historical cost convention on accrual basis and has been following the accounting policies consistently over the years.

7. The Ld.CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Appellant has created the provision towards periodic maintenance on proportionate basis as per the accrual system of accounting in a scientific manner and therefore it is an ascertained liability and it is an allowable deduction under the provisions of Income Tax Act.

8. The Ld.CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that deduction should be allowed although liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date, when it is definite to incur such liability.

9. Without prejudice to the grounds at Sl.no. 2 to 8 above, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the grounds at sl.no. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the appeal filed by the Appellant before him and by not passing a speaking order on this issue. SAO, towards disallowance of excess depreciation by holding that grant received.

10. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 33,03,76,703 made by the from NHAI was towards the capital cost of the project and hence the same should be reduced from the cost of the capital asset before allowing depreciation.

11. The Ld. CTT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that out of Rs. 86 crores paid by the NHAI towards grant to the Appellant, Rs. 11.34 crores is related to operations and maintenance expenses and the balance amount of Rs. 74.66 crores relates to the shareholders' funds which has nothing to do with the depreciation/amortization on fi