9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the depreciation on motor car, ignoring that AO had correctly disallowed the claim as the car was not registered in the company's name. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in excluding the interest of Rs. 31,07,917/- from the computation of disallowance u/s.14A, holding that interest on car loan, packing credit interest and term loan interest cannot be attributed to investment in securities, ignoring that the said interest is related to assets and not to income and therefore cannot be excluded from the gross interest. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered, and he would be entitled to depreciation thereon. 3.4 In view of the aforesaid facts and case laws, the depreciation disallowed by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,49,149/- is deleted." 4. Against the above said order the revenue is in appeal before us. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Learned departmental representative has relied upon the decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in case of Edwise Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.391/Mum/2011 vide order dated 19.04.2013. On the other hand, learned counsel of the assessee relied upon the order of the same assessee for subsequent assessment year vide order dated 14.10.2015 in which the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 5. On careful cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. In view of the direction decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is available on this issue, we prefer to follow the same to that rendered by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y.2007-08. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to allow depreciation on vehicles." 6. Since above decision of the Tribunal has been passed after taking into account Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court decisions, following the above said decisions we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A). Hence this issue is decided in favour of the assessee. Apropos Ground No. 2:- 7. On this issue the assesse had explained to the Assessing Officer as under:- "During the year under assessment, our as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter revenue cannot have any grievance. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A). Apropos Ground No. 3:- 10. Brief facts on this issue are as under:- "7.1 The assesse during the course of appellate proceedings vide letter dated 03.12.2008 stated that the assessee has disallowed an expenditure of Rs. 32,74,839/- in A.Y.2007-08 as prior period expenses. Therefore the same should be allowed as expenditure during the year as the same pertains to the A.Y. under question. 7.2 The AO did not consider the appellant's claim stating that the appellant has not filed any revised return as required in the case of Goetz India (Ltd.) 284 ITR 323." 11. Upon assessees appeal learned CIT(A) held that Assessing Officer has not doubt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
