9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1062X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed their vakalatnama on behalf of respondent, which is taken on record. Heard Sri Alok Mathur, Counsel for the appellant and Sri Krishna Ratan Rastogi, Counsel for the respondent. Through the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the "Act"], appellant/department challenges the judgment and order dated 20.6.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in Escorts Limited and Ors. Vs. Union of India and others :[1993] 199 ITR 43 (SC), submits that depreciation under Section 32 of the Act was not allowable. Per contra, Sri Krishna Ratan Rastogi, Counsel for the respondent, while placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Tiny Tots Educational Society : [2011] 330 ITR 21 (P &H) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llow the claim of depreciation of the assessee and the Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the records. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, it reflects that after taking into consideration the undisputed facts that the issue of depreciation on the assets of the assesses was examined by the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessment Year under consideration declared by the assessee is nil. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order. During the course of arguments, Sri Alok Mathur, learned Counsel for the department has also failed to point out any reasonable cause which shows that depreciation was allowable. Moreover, as per Clause 3 of Circular No. 3/2011[F.No. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
