2012 (8) TMI 1149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ated 23-03-2010 of the CIT(A)-34, Mumbai reads as under: On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in a)Confirming an addition of ₹ 27,727/- in respect of depreciation on assets introduced by a partner of the firm. b)Not following that tests prescribed by the apex court for allowance of depreciation allowance. Assessee firm, engaged in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee, AO disallowed the claim of depreciation to the extent of ₹ 27,727/-. In the appellate proceedings before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) it was held that the assets in question were not in the name of the assessee-firm, so it was not entitled for depreciation. Upholding the order of the AO, he dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 3. Before us, Authorised Representati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material submitted before us. The undisputed facts are that the assets were purchased by Shri Dadarkar in his individual capacity, that he had made the payment, that by journal entry he transferred the said assets to the assessee-firm. In our opinion, provisions of the Act do not allow depreciation on the assets purchased and owned by other .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X