9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Appeal against the order dated 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. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not in the name of the 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, Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the assessee. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
