TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Jasani ORDER P. C. 1 Heard Mr.Suresh Kumar appearing on behalf of the revenue and Mr.Irani appearing on behalf of the assessee. 2 The two questions projected as substantial questions of law read as under : (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in law, was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le for depreciation at the rate of 25% ? 3 As far as the question (a) above is concerned, in all fairness parties conceded that in the case of very assesssee the said question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.1043 of 2010, decided on 12th September, 2011. The wording of the question for the relevant assessment year before the Division Bench and for the curr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uestion of law. 5 As far as question (b) above is concerned, the Tribunal categorically held that, as a matter of fact the very issue was raised in the case of the assessee before us. That was raised in the assessment year 2005-2006 and a particular view was taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was not questioned by the revenue. Apart therefrom, what the Tribunal has found in t....