9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trate that deprecation was never claimed against the said property since its acquisition - AR submitted that during hearing various evidences were submitted in support of the fact that depreciation was never claimed on immoveable property - HELD THAT:- A conclusion was reached that the assessee could not establish that the property was not part of block of asset and depreciation against the same w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m provided in law. These two expenditures could not be said to be part of cost of acquisition or improvement. The issue of deductibility of other expenditure has already been restored back on the facts of the case since the assessee had failed to substantiate the same. No error in the order in terms of Section 254(2). The application stands dismissed. - MA No.220/Mum/2020 (Arising out of ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce its acquisition. The Ld. AR submitted that during hearing various evidences were submitted in support of the fact that depreciation was never claimed on immoveable property. The assessee had also filed statement of accounts for the year ending 31/03/2011 to 31/03/2014 which have inadvertently been omitted to be considered. Therefore, the order is erroneous. 2.2 The Ld. AR further submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudicating the issues. Upon perusal of these documents, a conclusion was reached in para 4 of the order that the assessee could not establish that the property was not part of block of asset and depreciation against the same was never claimed in earlier years. The perusal of record would reveal that the assessee had purchased the property on 31/12/2010 and the question of claiming depreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
