Court affirms ITAT decision on depreciation for online lottery machinery, no substantial question of law

The Court upheld the decision of the ITAT in permitting depreciation for the assessment year 2009-10, rejecting the revenue's challenge. The assessee's claim for depreciation on machinery used for online lottery services was supported by evidence of ownership from past assessments and a sub-distributor's confirmation. The Court found no substantial question of law in the case, affirming the ITAT's decision based on the assets being part of the business block and used for business purposes.

---

---

Issues:
1. Claim for depreciation for assessment year 2009-10 wrongly permitted.
2. Disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer.
3. Appeal to CIT (Appeals) allowed, but revenue's appeal rejected by ITAT.
4. Reopening of assessment for 2009-10 based on sub-distributor's statement.
5. Substantial question of law for consideration.
6. Affirmation of ITAT order in previous years.

Analysis:

1. The revenue challenged the ITAT's order permitting depreciation for the assessment year 2009-10, arguing it was wrongly allowed. The assessee provided online lottery services and claimed depreciation for machinery. The AO disallowed it, questioning ownership, but the CIT (Appeals) allowed it based on past assessments and a sub-distributor's confirmation. The ITAT upheld the decision, emphasizing the assets were part of the block and used for business.

2. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation, stating the assessee failed to prove ownership of the machinery claimed. However, the CIT (Appeals) and ITAT found evidence of ownership through past assessments and the sub-distributor's confirmation. The ITAT highlighted that the assets were part of the block and used for business, justifying the depreciation claim.

3. The CIT (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal based on past depreciation allowances and the sub-distributor's confirmation. The ITAT rejected the revenue's appeal, emphasizing the assets were used for the business. The ITAT's decision was upheld, stating no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

4. The revenue's attempt to reopen the assessment for 2009-10 based on the sub-distributor's statement failed as the statement supported the assessee's claim. The Court found no substantial question of law due to the factual nature of the findings and upheld the ITAT's decision.

5. The Court dismissed the appeal and application, citing affirmation of the ITAT's order in previous years. No substantial question of law arose for determination based on the facts and findings of the case.

6. In a related case, the Court affirmed the ITAT's order, further supporting the decision in this case. The dismissal of the appeal and application was based on the consistent findings and lack of substantial legal questions.

---