9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch has been found by him as enduring nature on which even depreciation @ 25% has been allowed by him. Therefore, it is tantamount to change of opinion. The addition made in original order by A.O. had been disputed by the assessee before the CIT(A). The order of A.O. had been merged with CIT(A) on these issues. Thus, we set aside the order of CIT-III, Baroda. It is clarified that we have not expressed any view on nature of expenses whether it is capital or revenue and also whether depreciation is allowable or not. Therefore, the lower authorities are free to take decision as per law. - ITA No.1576/Ahd/2009 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2012 - Mukul Kr Shrawat and T.R. Meena, JJ. Appellant Rep by: Shri Milin Mehta, AR Respondent Rep by: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng industry to keep the company abreast with the competitive market. As per the A.O., these expenses found for enduring benefit. These expenses also include salary paid, petrol expenses, vehicle expenses, spares etc. The ld. A.O. finally made addition of Rs. 7,22,33,356/- in the income of the appellant and allowed the depreciation @ 25%. The CIT-III, Baroda, had given notice u/s. 263. The appellant also replied and the explanation of the assessee is as under: (i) Research and development expenses amounting to Rs.7,22,33,356/- has been claimed by us as Revenue expenditure in our tax return for A.Y. 2004-05. However the Ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed the said expenditure holding the same to result in an enduring benefit thereby b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee shall furnish all the details and in case it is found that excess depreciation is allowed the same shall be withdrawn by the assessing officer. 3. Now the assessee carried the matter before us. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contended that the assessee had claimed this expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, the ld. A.O. added it being treated this expenditure as capital expenditure on which depreciation @ 25% was allowed. The appellant has carried this matter before the CIT(A), which is pending. Thus, the order of the A.O. had been merged with CIT(A). Therefore, CIT does not have any jurisdiction to consider this aspect. Further, the addition made by the A.O., after detailed investigation and added the same expenditure in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
