9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied in restricting the claim of depreciation to 5%. We direct the AO to allow the claim of depreciation @ 10%. Thus the ground of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 7577/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2021 - SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Joshi, C.A. Revenue by : Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.09.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under : 3. Assessee is a company which is stated to be engaged in Trading and Investments in Securities. Assessee fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Tribunal as held by the Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (229 ITR 383). The appellant prays to your honours to kindly allow to raise the above additional ground which is purely legal in the nature. The appellant further craves leaves to add, alter, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 5. With respect to the additional ground, it is the submission of the assessee that the additional ground raised is purely legal in nature and though the same was not raised before the CIT(A) but assessee was entitled to raise the same for the first time before the Hon ble Tribunal and for which reliance was placed on the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he monetary limit of ₹ 10,00,000/- would be applicable. He thereafter pointed to the assessment order and submitted that the AO has proceeded to disallow the depreciation of ₹ 84,010/- for the reason that the depreciation was claimed on a residential property and there was no evidence of being put to use for the purpose of business. He submitted that the Limited Scrutiny did not include the issue of depreciation. He therefore submitted that in the absence of not following the binding instructions of CBDT for converting a limited scrutiny case to fill scrutiny case, the order of AO be set aside. On the merits of the addition, he submitted that assessee had claimed depreciation @ 10% on a residential property owned by it and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the ground was not raised before the CIT(A). He thus supported the order of lower authorities. 10. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the disallowance of depreciation made by AO. I find that assessee had claimed depreciation @ 10% on residential property amounting to ₹ 1,68,021/- but AO had restricted the addition to only ₹ 84,010/- for the reason stated in his order. Before me, it is the contention of the assessee that the disallowance has been made for the first time in the year under consideration and there has been no disallowance either in the preceding assessment year or succeeding assessment year. The aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
