9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Determining the written down value for depreciation on technical know-how for the assessment year 1988-89. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Bangalore centered around the written down value on which depreciation should be allowed on technical know-how for the assessment year 1988-89. The assessee had claimed depreciation on technical know-how until the assessment year 1982-83, with a fixed written down value of Rs. 4,76,490. However, for the subsequent years 1983-84 to 1987-88, no depreciation was claimed. The Assessing Officer contended that the omission to claim depreciation in those years precluded the assessee from making such a claim in the following years. The CIT(A) acknowledged the right of the assessee to claim depreciation on technical know-how but determined the written down value based on the assumption that depreciation had been claimed in the years 1983-84 to 1987-88. The assessee challenged this view, asserting entitlement to depreciation based on the fixed value from 1982-83. The assessee relied on legal precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in Madeva Upendra Sinai's case, the Kerala High Court's ruling in Jose Kuruvilla's case, and the Karnataka High Court's decision in the case of Machine Tool Corporation of India Ltd. Madeva Upendra Sinai's case established that in the absence of actual depreciation allowed or ascertainable, depreciation should be calculated at the prevailing rate under the Income-tax Act. The Kerala High Court in Jose Kuruvilla's case allowed depreciation on the cost of acquisition where no depreciation had been previously claimed or allowed. The Karnataka High Court's decision emphasized that revised returns supersede original claims for deductions. The Appellate Tribunal, following the legal principles from the cited cases, concluded that the assessee was entitled to depreciation based on the fixed written down value from the assessment year 1982-83, given the absence of depreciation claims in the subsequent years. Therefore, the Tribunal overturned the CIT(A)'s decision and allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on the established value. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
|
