9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the preceding assessment year [ 2016 (11) TMI 1362 - ITAT DELHI] Since the AO while disallowing the depreciation has followed the order of his predecessor and disallowed the depreciation holding that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance has been challenged by the revenue before the Tribunal and since the Tribunal has already deleted such disallowance, therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting such disallowance of depreciation. Ld. DR could not point out any distinguishing features so as to take a contrary view from the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 3825/Del/2017, ITA No. 4698/Del/2017, ITA No. 221/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 19-1-2021 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeals and the Tribunal shall consider such application appropriately as per law. The Revenue has no objection with regard to the aforesaid caveat. 5. In view of the aforesaid, both the appeals filed by the assessee are consigned to record and for statistical purposes are treated as dismissed. ITA No. 4698/Del/2017 (Asstt. Year 2011-12) (By revenue) 6. The only effective ground raised by the revenue reads as under :- 1. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making deletion amounting to ₹ 2,96,50,443/- on account of depreciation on rental assets without considering the facts that depreciation was claimed on higher purchases. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) deleted the addition by observing as under :- 5.3 Decision I have considered the findings of the Assessing Officer, arguments of the Ld. AR and the decision of Hon ble ITAT in appellant s own case. Hon ble ITAT for year dated 19/09/2016 in ITA No. 3284/Del/2010 for AY. 2002-03, ITA No.3330/Del/2010 for AY. 2003-04, ITA No.4712/Del/2011 for AY. 2004-05, ITA No.2466/Del/2012 for AY. 2005-06, ITA No.490/Del/2011 for AY. 2006-07, ITA No.l266/Del/2013 for AY. 2008-09. For A.Y. Findings of the Hon ble ITAT are as under:- We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The coordinate bench has considered the identical issue wherein depreciation was allowed on machineries which arc installed at the manufacturing premis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufacture of the fruit juices are to be sourced from the sources and as per the specification approved by the assessee. 'Thus, a perusal of the product supply agreement shows that Dynamix is manufacturing the fruit juices for and on behalf of the assessee. Dynamix has no say in the method of manufacture, product mix, sourcing of raw material quality of raw material, method of packing, design of packing etc. It is not a case where Dynamix manufacture fruit juices and the assessee is a dealer for the fruit juice manufactured by Dynamix. A perusal of the equipment Supply Agreement between the assessee and the Dynamix clearly shows that it manufactures the fruit juices as per the requirement of the assessee and as agreed between the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be entitled for claiming the. depreciation In respect of the depreciation in regard to the Visi Refrigerators, it is noticed that these refrigerators have been installed at the premises of the dealers of the products dealt with by the assessee. Obviously, the product dealt in by the assessee are perishable commodities which have shelf life and which have to be maintained between a specific temperature. The A. O. has not pointed out anything to show that the refrigerators were not used for the business of the assessee. In fact the order of the A.O. specified that the refrigerators were not proved to have been put to business use during the relevant previous year. The fact that these refrigerators were at the various outlets all over India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d period and the agreements provided that on payment on all instalments the title of the assets passes on to the hirer. We find the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that while deleting the disallowance he has followed the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in the preceding assessment year. Since the AO while disallowing the depreciation has followed the order of his predecessor and disallowed the depreciation holding that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance has been challenged by the revenue before the Tribunal and since the Tribunal has already deleted such disallo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
