9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee was having auto corners which were used by the assessee for the purpose of its business and were included in the 'block of assets' of the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee did not use the auto corners for its business purposes, but leased out the same. The assessee has shown the lease income under the head 'business income' and thereby claimed depreciation on the same. According to the Assessing Officer, under the provisions of section 32, depreciation cannot be allowed to the assessee on any asset which is not used for the purpose of the business of the assesse. The Assessing Officer further observed that depreciation is also not allowable on leased assets as the assessee was not in leasing business and he re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Assessing Officer. He also submitted that the assessee has not filed any copy of the lease agreement and without examining the nature of the lease, it cannot be said that depreciation claimed was allowable to the assessee even when the income from lease rental was assessable under the head 'income from other sources. He also argued that the assessee has also not filed copy of the balance sheet or computation of income to show that the lease rent was included by the assessee under the head 'business income'. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the undisputed facts are that the auto corners which were used by the assessee in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stical purposes. 8. In Revenue's appeal, the only issue raised is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of brokerage and commission. 9. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration the assessee has paid brokerage and commission of Rs. 26,03,001/-. The Assessing Officer observed that the journal voucher was dated 10.6.2008 for commission payment to M/s Kedia Enterprises on which TDS of Rs. 3001/- was deducted and paid to the credit of the Central Government on 5.7.2008. From this he concluded that the payment relates to the assessment year 2009-10 and not the assessment year 2008-09 and therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction to the assesse. 10. On appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that both the lower authorities have not examined as to the date on which such commission became payable by the assesse. Before us, the A.R filed a chart showing the sales in respect of which commission in question was incurred by the assesse. In our considered opinion, these details requires verification and both the parties before us agreed that the matter should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the details and thereafter adjudication of the issue afresh as per law as discussed above. We, therefore, restore this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh in the light of the discussion made herein above after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assesse. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
