9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Tribunal, Madras, 'B' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1980/Mds/2011 for the Assessment Year 2004-05. The following Substantial Questions of Law are framed for consideration: "1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred towards revamping of visbreaker unit which was abandoned is not an allowable deduction under Section 37 of the Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal should have directed the grant of depreciation on the repair charges incurred on Vis Breaker. 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in disagreeing with the Order of the Third Member of the Tribunal in the Assessee's own case for AY 1998-99 in ITA No.1822/Mds/2006 dated 23.10.2009 & Hon'ble Mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;used for the purpose of business' as explained in (1954) 25 ITR 265 (Liquidators of Pursa Ltd Vs CIT) and held that so long as the business was going and the machinery got ready for use but due to certain extraneous circumstances, the machinery could not be put to use, the said fact could not stand in the way of granting relief under Section 32 of the Act. 20. As far as the decision of this Court reported in 260 ITR 655 (CIT Vs. Maps Tours and Travels) is concerned, if under law, there is a prohibition on the assessee to put the cars on roads for want of registration, considering such prohibition, the claim of the assessee under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act could not be granted. Thus the above said decision has to be seen in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a finding against the assessee, We find no grounds to interfere with the said finding. Accordingly, the Substantial Question of law No.1 is answered against the assessee. With regard to Substantial Question of law No.2 is concerned, having held that the deduction is not allowable under Section 37 of the Act with regard to the expenditure incurred for revamping of vis-breaker Unit. The Tribunal ought to have considered the claim for consideration at vis-breaker Unit. Though there is a reference made to the said submission of the assessee, We find that there is no specific finding rendered by the Tribunal on that record. That apart, We find that such a claim for depreciation was not made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer or befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
