9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a revised return. The Tribunal in this context, refereed to and relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders P Ltd reported in [2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. In the said case, the Division Bench of this Court had taken a view that the Appellate Authorities have power to consider the claim even though not made in the return. This question, therefore, is not required to be entertained. Additional depreciation - Held that:- CIT (Appeals) had rejected the assessee's claim on the ground that the same did not pertain to the year under consideration. If that be so, the Tribunal should have given its opinion whether the CIT (Appeals) was correct in coming to such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any revised return. C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in restoring the matter back to the file of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) in respect of claim of additional depreciation pertains to earlier years of ₹ 1.42 crores without appreciating the fact that the assessee has neither claimed the said depreciation in the return of income nor filed any revised return? 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue candidly stated that the Question B is covered against the Revenue by virtue of the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Associated Cables Pvt Ltd reported in [2006] 286 ITR 596 (Bom). This question is not required to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the year under consideration. In further appeal, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT (Appeals) for fresh consideration. 7. Upon perusal of the order of the Tribunal, we notice that there is some dichotomy in the observations made by the Tribunal with respect to this issue. At one stage, the Tribunal noted the findings of the CIT (Appeals) that the claim pertains to the Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and not the current year whereas at a later stage, the Tribunal referred to the issue being not entertained by the CIT (Appeals) since the assessee had not made the claim in the return filed. 8. It appears that the CIT (Appeals) had rejected the assessee's claim on the ground that the same did not pertain to the yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
