9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A)-II, Jaipur for the assessment year 2008-09. 2.1 The only ground raised by the Department in this appeal is as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the ld. CIT(A) and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in:- (1) allowing depreciation of ₹ 53,10,264/- and financial expenses of ₹ 1,70,19,849/- from 8% net profit rate applied by the AO without appreciating that where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenses claimed by the assessee under various heads were not subject to verification. He, therefore, rejected the books of accounts of the assessee by invoking the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act and determined the income by applying 8% net profit rate on the gross receipts of the assessee. The AO did not allow the benefit of depreciation and interest claimed out of net profit rate deter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed the benefit of depreciation and finance charges by following earlier order of the Tribunal in ITA No.581/ JP/2009 dated 17-06-2010 for the assessment year 2006-07 in assessee's own case. 2.5 Now the Department is in appeal. 2.6 The ld. DR supported the order of the AO. 2.7 In his rival submissions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the impugned order passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee after applying the net profit rate of 8% and that view is also supported by judgements of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jain Construction, 245 ITR 527 and CIT vs. Bhawan Va Path Nirman (Bohra) and Co. 258 ITR 440. We therefore, do not see any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
