2013 (1) TMI 455

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nery had been allowed in the earlier assessment year and these assets were used for the purpose of assessee's business, for the assessment year under reference. Directing the AO to allow depreciation on the WDV of P&M – In favour of assessee
MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. AND MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA. JJ. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ravi Shanker, Advocate with Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 204 of 2004 and 320 of 2005 as identical question of law is involved therein. For brevity, the facts are extracted from ITA No. 204 of 2004. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of depreciation on the plant and machinery. Against the order of the CIT(A), the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 23.9.2003 (Annexure A-3) upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that the assessee had let out the machinery without there being any commercial expediency and the amount of lease was not increased in spite of providing additional machinery worth Rs. 45,64,613/-. According to the learned counsel, the Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim on depreciation and the said action was justified. However, the Tribunal on erroneous premise taking the assessment year 1994-95 as th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he facts discussed above, it is clear that the appellant did replace machinery during the year under appeal which has not been denied at all and which is supported by bills and vouchers and were produced before the Assessing Officer and also in view of the fact that such like claim was also made in the earlier years and was allowed as such. Therefore, there does not appear to be any justification for disallowance of depreciation. The disallowance so made by the Assessing Officer is cancelled and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim of the appellant with regard to depreciation. This ground of appeal, therefore, succeeds." 6. The aforesaid finding of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 1994-95 has not be upset by any authority .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X