9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me on 15.05.1992, declaring total income at Rs. 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 Rs. 21,44,109/-. The assessee, hence, approached the CIT(A), who partly allowed its appeal. Being aggrieved with the same, the Revenue approached the Tribunal by way of appeal, wherein, the Tribunal passed the impugned order, as referred to in Para-1, herein above. Hence, the present appeal. 3. At the time of admitting the present appeal, this Court framed the following questions of law; "(1) Is centering material to be viewed as "block of assets" for the purpose of allowing deduction in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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 HOUSING FINANCE AND LEASING", [2013] 354 ITR 0180 (Delhi High Court); 7. Mr. Shah relying on the decision of this Court in "CIT VS. DHALL ENTERPRISES AND ENGINEERING P. LTD.", submitted that this Court, in Paras-12 & 13 of the aforesaid decision, observed and he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ION 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 the order of the CIT(A), allowing 100 per cent depreciation to the assessee. 9. In the result, present appeal fails and is DISMISSED, as being without merit. The questions of law frame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
