9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anuary 2009, seeking to raise the following questions :- [A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT [A] in allowing the claim of assessee for depreciation on assets leased out to RSEB amounting to ₹ 1,00,00,801/= ? [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT [A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee. Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by impugned order dated 9th January 2009, dismissed the appeal relying on the previous decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Unimed Technologies Limited vs. DCIT [(2008) 73 ITD 150]. The decision of the Tribunal is under challenge before us in appeal. Counsel for the revenue, while taking us to the record, soug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that the Tribunal had rightly appreciated the facts and correctly found the transaction to be genuine and such a finding could not be treated to be perverse. 7. Admittedly, the transaction in question which the High Court of Rajasthan was called upon to deal with is the same transaction which has been found to be genuine by the Tribunal in the present case. The lease rental paid by Rajastha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Tribunal so as to give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, as proposed or otherwise. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Facts being similar, we see no reason to interfere in the present petition in so far as Question No. 1 is concerned. With respect to Question No. 2, we find that in the present Tax Appeal, the amount involved is only ₹ 7,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
