2008 (10) TMI 369

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....law were framed for consideration. At the time of argument, Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that instead the following substantial question of law may be framed for con-sideration.   "C. The Appellate Tribunal failed to see that the third proviso to section 32(1) read as follows :   `Provided also that, in respect of the previous year relevant to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... " . . . 2. For the assessment year 1991-92, the grievance of the assessee is with regarding to making proper adjustment in regard to depreciation to the extent of restricting the deduction to 75 per cent. This is a case of a limited company, which is an artificial juridical person. Unless and until it could be shown that the assets are used for non-business purposes the restriction of depreciati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aws (Amendment) Act, 1991, for the following reason :   "Faced with the stringent financial situation arising out of the Gulf crisis, to mobilise additional resources to meet the same, the Government decided to restrict the depreciation allowable on the written down value of block of assets to 75 per cent. of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed under the Act. The third pro-v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), where the assessee contended that when the assessee him-self has filed a revised return, the levy of additional tax was unwarranted. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, therefore, when the revised return had been filed and the claim for depreciation has been restricted to 75 per cent. as it should, there should not be claim for any additional t....