9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and allowed by the Assessing Officer. The above proves, that it was only for the Financial Year 2004-05, that the assessee was unable to put to the plant and machinery, due to stoppage of movement of Fly Ash. This has resulted in temporary closure. Depreciation cannot be denied under such circumstances. Even otherwise, under the block of assets concept, the requirement of using of the plant and machinery, by the assessee, during the Financial Year, does not arise. See Natco Exports. Versus DCIT [2002 (6) TMI 168 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A ] - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 2008/Kol/2014 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2017 - J. Sudhakar Reddy (Accountant Member) And S. S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) For the Assessee : A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary legal action has been undertaken and order have been passed directing NTPC to resume supply of dry fly ash. However, NTPC has filed appeal against such order. Hearing for the case is continuing. 4.1. For the Assessment Year 2003-04, this plant was in operation and the assese claimed depreciation and the same was allowed. The Director s Report for the year ended 31st March 2008, reports resumption of supplies of Fly Ash. The plant was in operation for the Financial Year 2007-08, relevant to the Assessment Year 2008-09 and depreciation was claimed by the assessee and allowed by the Assessing Officer. The above proves, that it was only for the Financial Year 2004-05, that the assessee was unable to put to the plant and machinery, due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ITAT in the case of Parikh Engg. Body Bldg. Co. Ltd. (supra). Therefore, in view of the decisions and interpretation of the concept of block of assets depreciation on ponds which is forming part of the block of assets has to be allowed as deduction even though these ponds were discarded and not used and not owned by it during the assessment years in question, as the assessee was not entitled to any scrap value whatsoever, consequent to discarding. Coming to the case law relied upon by the ld. Departmental Representative and by the ld. CIT(A), all of them are distinguishable, as all these cases dealt with grant of depreciation for assessment years before the introduction of the concept of depreciation on block assets. Thus, we upho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
