2013 (8) TMI 191

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of claim of depreciation on intangible assets, being software."      (2) "Whether the Tribunal is right in deleting the addition made on account of bogus purchase."      (3) "Whether the Tribunal is right in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act"      (4) "Whether the Tribunal is right in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of loss on sale of raw materials"      (5) "Whether the Tribunal is right in deleting the addition made on account of differences of balance of Rs.14,03,85,459/-"      (6) "Whether the Tribunal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ). Nothing is produced before us during the course of arguments to rebut the findings of learned CIT(A). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the material on record, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A) in allowing depreciation in respect of all the software purchased and installed during the year." This issue had also arisen in Tax Appeal No. 509 of 2012. We have not deemed it fit to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal in view of the fact that it is only a remand to the Assessing Officer. This issue also meets similar fate and therefore, no interference is required. As far as the question no. 2 is concerned, this is based on the evidence made available t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ). In absence of any evidence to rebut the factum of respondent having sustained loss, the Tribunal thought it fit not to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). This issue is too essentially & predominantly based on the facts and it can be noted that sufficient reasonings have been given by the Tribunal to arrive at such conclusion. In absence of any question of law arising, this issue requires no indulgence. As far as the question no. 5 is concerned, the Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of difference of balances of Rs.14,03,85,459/-. The Tribunal after considering the explanation of the assessee-respondent and the findings of the CIT(A), recorded the reconciliation statement substantiated by necessary evidence which had .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X