9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1179 - SCH - Income TaxDepreciation allowed as per its original return of income u/explanation-5 to clause (ii) of Section 32(1) inserted vide Finance Act - HELD THAT - Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mahendra Mills 2000 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT the High Court has dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Revenue. Revenue has heavily relied upon Explanation 5 to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We are of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Explanation 5 to Section 32(1) shall not come to the rescue of the Revenue.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the application for amendment of cause title, the dismissal of appeals by the Revenue by the High Courts of Gujarat and Madras, and the interpretation of Explanation 5 to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Amendment of Cause Title: The application for the amendment of the cause title in C.A. No. 8488/2012 was allowed by the Supreme Court. High Court Judgments: The Revenue was aggrieved by the judgments of the High Court of Gujarat and the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which dismissed the appeals preferred by the Revenue. The High Court in C.A. No. 5941 of 2022 considered whether the Tribunal was right in reversing the decision of the CIT(A) regarding the claim of depreciation by the assessee. The High Court also examined whether the assessee validly withdrew its claim for deduction of depreciation in the Assessment Year 1999-2000. The High Court, relying on the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mahendra Mills, dismissed the Revenue's appeals. Interpretation of Explanation 5 to Section 32(1): Shri N. Venkataraman, learned ASG for the Revenue, heavily relied on Explanation 5 to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the Supreme Court held that in the present case, Explanation 5 shall not benefit the Revenue. The Court concluded that no interference was warranted and consequently dismissed both appeals by the Revenue.
|
