2015 (1) TMI 970

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n appeal by the appellant- Revenue, seeking to challenge the order of the learned ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' (for short, 'the Tribunal'), Dated : 01.02.2002, rendered in ITA No. 2405/AHD/1996 for the A.Y. 1991-92, whereby, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent-assessee, filed its return of income on 15.05.1992, declaring total income at ₹ 11,90,459/-. Pursuant thereto, the case of the assessee was examined and the concerned AO, after making certain additions / disallowances, assessed the income of the assessee at ₹ 21,44,109/-. The assessee, hence, approached the CIT(A), who partly allowed its appeal. Being aggrieved with the same, the Revenue a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r cent depreciation under First Proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He, therefore, prayed that the present appeal be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the assessee, supported the orders of the learned CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal committed no error in confirming the order of the CIT(A). In support of his submissions, Mr. Shah placed reliance on the following decisions; CIT VS. ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD. , [2003] 264 ITR 0269 (Madras High Court); CIT VS. MOHTA CONSTRUCTION CO. , [2005] 273 ITR 0276 (Rajasthan High Court); CIT VS. DHALL ENTERPRISES AND ENGINEERING P. LTD. , [2006] 287 ITR 435 (Gujarat); CIT VS. ANSAL .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ation at 100 per cent by placing reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT VS. NATIONAL AIR PRODUCTS LTD. , 126 ITR 196 and that of ITAT, Delhi Bench, in AUNSAL CONSTRUCTION VS. IAC , 36 TTJ 26. Admittedly, the facts of the case on hand and that of the decisions relied on by the CIT(A) are identical in nature and the aforesaid fact is not disputed by Mr. Mehta, learned Advocate for the appellant-Revenue. Under the circumstances, in view of the decision of this Court in CIT VS. DHALL ENTERPRISES AND ENGINEERING P. LTD. , we are of the view that the decision relied on by Mr. Mehta in the case of CIT VS. VIJAYA ENTERPRISE (Supra) would not help the case of the Revenue and we hold that the Tribunal was justified in confirming .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X