9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing the ld.DR. 2. Only issue raised in all the grounds of appeal is against the direction by the ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Smifs Securities Ltd reported in 348 ITR 302 (SC) by ignoring the fact that the facts of the said case are distinguishable from the facts of the assessee's case and also in-complete disregarding the CBDT circular No.549 dated 31.10.1989. 3. Facts of the case are that he assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 30.9.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 63,71,94,610/- which was revised on 30.3.2011 at an income of Rs. 33,90,50,860/- by claiming depreciation of Rs. 29.81 crores at the rate of 20% on written down value (WDV) of block of inta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Rs. 63,71,94,610/- under the normal provisions of Act and Rs. 42,00,26,450/- under section 115JB of the Act, vide order dated 13.3.2013 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(4) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions ofld.AR, which has been incorporated in para 2.2 of the appeal order allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under : "3. Decision After careful perusal of the assessment order and the written submissions filed by the A/R of the appellant it has been observed that the case of the appellant company is covered by the order of my predecessor in Appeal No. CIT(A)-16/ Addl.CIT-8(1)/IT-190/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . After considering the relevant records, orders of authorities below, we find that the similar issue has been decided by the FAA for the assessment year 2008-09 in favour of the assessee holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on goodwill by following the decision of Apex Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd (supra). We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that the case of the assessee stands covered by the earlier decision by the order of FAA. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue.
7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.
The above order was pronounced in the open court on 25th July, 2016. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
