Assessee's Appeal Partly Allowed: Set-off Disallowed, Depreciation Denied

The tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, remanding the disallowance u/s.14A for further examination by the CIT(A). The tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the non-allowance of set off of long term capital loss for A.Y. 2005-06, stating no carry forward was permissible without acceptance of the loss. Additionally, the tribunal denied the depreciation claim on a 'leased premises' due to property vacation, emphasizing the necessity of ownership and usage for depreciation claims. The appeal was dismissed based on non-usage in any previous year under section 32(1)(iii).

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance u/s.14A
2. Non-allowance of set off of long term capital loss
3. Disallowance of depreciation claim on a 'leased premises'

Issue 1: Disallowance u/s.14A
The appeal contested the assessment u/s.143(3) for A.Y. 2008-09, focusing on disallowance u/s.14A. The Assessing Officer observed dividend income and LTCG claimed as tax-exempt. The assessee disallowed a sum u/s.14A, but the accounts lacked correspondence between expenses and exempt income. Rule 8D was applied to estimate indirect expenditure. The assessee argued no expenditure was incurred related to non-total income, citing the absence of portfolio management fees. The disallowance was upheld by the CIT(A) based on composite accounts. The tribunal noted the need for estimation under rule 8D and remanded the matter for further examination by the CIT(A).

Issue 2: Non-allowance of set off of long term capital loss
The dispute involved the disallowance of set off of long term capital loss for A.Y. 2005-06 against current year LTCG. The Revenue rejected the claim, pending appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal ruled that without acceptance of the loss for A.Y. 2005-06, no carry forward for set off was permissible against subsequent years' income. The appeal was dismissed based on the current operative order for A.Y. 2005-06.

Issue 3: Disallowance of depreciation claim on a 'leased premises'
The final issue pertained to disallowance of depreciation on a 'leased premises' due to property vacation. The tribunal referenced precedents to establish the necessity of ownership and usage for depreciation claims. The assessee's claim for depreciation on the vacated asset was denied as it did not satisfy the usage condition. The tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s rejection of the entire expenditure claim, suggesting a need for further details examination. However, the tribunal found no basis for the claim under section 32(1)(iii) due to non-usage in any previous year, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, addressing each issue comprehensively and providing legal interpretations based on relevant precedents and statutory provisions.

---