9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red against the assessee. Grant of depreciation on the repair charges incurred on Vis Breaker - HELD THAT:- 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 before the CIT(A) as an alternate submission and it was raised only before the Tribunal. Therefore, We are inclined to grant li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 Madras High Court decision in asseesse's own case for AY 1998-99 in TCA 358 of 2010 regarding the claim of depreciation on gas sweetening plant? 2. We have heard Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the appellant / assessee and Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the respondent / Revenue. 3. So far as the Substantial Question of Law No.3 is concerned, the same issue was considered as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted 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 the light of the facts and circumstances of the case; hence, the same would not be of any assistance to the assessee. In fact, learned Standing counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly stated before this Court that in the decisions reported in (2009) 311 ITR 202 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd.,) and (2008) 301 ITR 255 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Southern Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 before the CIT(A) as an alternate submission and it was raised only before the Tribunal. Therefore, We are inclined to grant liberty to the assessee to raise that issue before the Assessing Officer which can be considered in accordance with law. 5. In the light of the above decision, the Tax Case Appeal is partly allowed. Substantial Question of Law No.1 is answered against the assessee. Substantial Questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
