9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lled in the building during AY 1989-90 was ready for use for the purpose of business of the Assessee. The electricity connection was given on 6th February 1990. Another important fact was that the Assessee was already conducting its business and this was Unit II which was by way of expansion of an existing business. It is not the Revenue's case that the building and plant and machinery were not for the purpose of business of the Assessee. Therefore, it is concluded that the building and machinery in Unit II were used for the purpose of the business of the Assessee during the AY in question. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA 346/2002 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2015 - S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. S. Krish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Furniture fixtures: ₹ 2,920.00 Office equipment in respect of Unit-II: ₹ 6,534.00 ₹ 1,97,458.00 4. The AO disallowed the above claim of depreciation on the ground that (i) no sales have been made from Unit-II; (ii) purchases made for Unit-II are only ₹ 361.70; (iii) no expenses under any head have been claimed; (iv) all the wages payments and official documents showed that no manufacturing activity took place; (v) no separate staff was engaged and (vi) no power bill has been received. The AO held that the Assessee failed to prove that it had undertaken any manufacturing activity during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be granted to the Assessee. The first is ownership of the asset and the second, the user of the assets for the purposes of the business. The Court on the facts of the said case rejected the stand of the Revenue that the machinery and equipment had to be put to actual use and that it would not be enough if they were kept ready for use . The Court referred to a large number of decisions of the High Courts which held that the expression used for the purpose of business in Section 32 of the Act was interpreted to include a case where the asset is kept ready for use but is not actually put to use. These included Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 79 ITR 613 (Bom); CIT v. Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 297 (Del); CIT v. Vayit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or use for the purpose of business of the Assessee. The electricity connection was given on 6th February 1990. Another important fact was that the Assessee was already conducting its business and this was Unit II which was by way of expansion of an existing business. It is not the Revenue's case that the building and plant and machinery were not for the purpose of business of the Assessee. Therefore, it is concluded that the building and machinery in Unit II were used for the purpose of the business of the Assessee during the AY in question. 11. The question of law is accordingly answered in the negative, i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The impugned order of the ITAT on the issue is set aside and the appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
