9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -revenue in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) has proposed the following questions stated to be substantial questions of law arising out of the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 31st March 2008 : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in reversing the decision of the CIT (A), whereby the claim of the depre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2000 at a loss of Rs.6,72,83,840/-. In the revised return, assessee withdrew the claim for depreciation of Rs.15,02,73,234/- relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mahendra Mills, 243 ITR 56 (SC). The Assessing Officer did not accept the withdrawal of depreciation by the assessee and assessed the income of the assessee at a loss of Rs.21,75,57,087/- after allowing depre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed deduction in respect of depreciation in computing his total income. It was, accordingly, submitted that a substantial question of law, as proposed, arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal. 4. As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has recorded that it is not in dispute that the assessee had filed revised return and withdrawn its claim for depreciation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Guj.), had concurred with the said decision. The Tribunal was, accordingly, of the view that once the assessee has validly withdrawn its claim for deduction of depreciation, the same cannot be thrust upon the assessee in the assessment year 1999-2000. 5. Section 32 of the Act provides for certain deductions being allowed in respect of depreciation. The Supreme Court in CIT v. Mahendra Mills, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00, hence, apparently, the provisions of Explanation 5 would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the circumstances, once the assessee had validly withdrawn its claim for deduction of depreciation, it was not permissible for Assessing Officer to grant the depreciation taking into account the amended provisions of section 32. 8. In the aforesaid factual matrix, no infirmity can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
