2014 (11) TMI 940

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tribunal was rightly of the view the that in Surat Textile Mills Ltd. v. Income tax Officer [2014 (5) TMI 481 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] it has been held that what the assessee had done was well within thin the legal framework - It was open for the assessee not to claim depreciation till the amendment was made by explanation 5 in section 32(1) of the Act which had the effect only from 1.4.2002 – thus, the order of the Tribunal is upheld – Decided against revenue.
MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. K.J.THAKER, JJ. MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the RESPONDENT ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed its return of income along wit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... use in the concerned financial year can be permitted as allowable deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Incometax Act, 1961? (2) Whether respondent-assessee had an option in law to claim partial depreciation in respect of any block of assets?? 4. Insofar as question no.(1) was concerned, the Apex Court answered the same in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as the same was covered by its decision rendered in the case of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad v. M/s. Core Health Care Ltd. passed in Civil Appeal No.395255 of 2002. However, insofar as question no.(2) was concerned, the Apex Court remitted the matter to the High Court for reconsideration in view of the omission of Section 34(1) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.1988. 5. We .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7. Similarly, in Tax Appeal No.175/2001 disposed of by the coordinate Bench, the following observations are relevant for our purpose; "We have heard the learned advocates at length and have also perused the order of the Tribunal and judgment delivered in the case of CIT v. Mahendra Mills, 243 ITR 56. In our opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal as the Tribunal has rightly decided the appeal in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Mills (supra). It is also pertinent to note that the Tribunal had taken similar view in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries v. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax (Assessment) in I.T.A. Nos. 2355/A/98, 1261 and 1190/A/89 for the Assessment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X