TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 484
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gment and order dated 02.07.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad [for short "the Tribunal"] in ITA No.284/Ahd/2001, whereby the appeal filed by the revenue was partly allowed by the Tribunal. 3. In Tax Appeal No.526 of 2007, the appellant-assessee has challenged the judgment and order dated 28.09.2006 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.2425/Ahd/2004, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed by the Tribunal. 4. In Tax Appeal No.527 of 2007, the appellant-assessee has challenged the judgment and order dated 29.09.2006 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.851/Ahd/2002, whereby the appeal filed by the revenue was partly allowed by the Tribunal. 5. In Tax Appeal No.699 of 2007, the appellant-assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to S.32(1) of the Act with effect from 01/04/2002, while calculating deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act ?" 9. While admitting Tax Appeal No.699 of 2007, the Court had formulated the following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts the Tribunal is right in law in interpreting Section 80IA and the explanation inserted with effect from 01.04.2002 to section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?" 10. Learned advocate for the appellants has contended that question of law involved in these appeals is already concluded by this Court in favour of the assessee in Tax Appeal No.93 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as it is covered by the decision of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 175 of 2001 as well as Tax Appeal No. 2/2002 decided on 17.11.2014. However, Mr. Parikh learned counsel for Revenue submitted that the question of law as raised in this case was never decided in those matters, and therefore, he requested that the question of law be decided afresh. As both the questions of law are inter connected are decided together. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. According to the learned counsel Mr. Parikh, the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Plastiblends India Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax & Ors., reported in [2009] 318 ITR (Bom)[FB] will ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the CIT(Appeals) which reads as under: 3. The contentions of the appellant and the reasons given by the Assessing Officer in allowing full depreciation are considered. The decision of CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration (P) Ltd. (supra) relied on by the assessing Officer is not applicable in the instant case as the issue as to whether depreciation is optional or not was never before the Supreme Court. The second decision of Madras High Court in the case of Dasa Prakash Bottling Co. v. CIT (supra) will also not be applicable as the Gujarat High Court,which is jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Arun Textiles 192 ITR 700 did not agree with this decision. In the case of Arun Textiles (su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowance. Respectfully following the decision of the Gujarat High Court, I hold that the depreciation is optional to the assessee and once he chooses not to claim it, the Assessing Officer cannot allow it while computing the income. Further, once the depreciation is option, applying the same ratio of Gujarat High Court and other Courts, it will be optional for block of assets also. It is not necessary that the depreciation is allowable not allowable as a whole. The assessee can claim it partly also in respect of certain block of assets and not claim in respect of other block of assets. I, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to withdraw depreciation allowance of Rs. 85,24,227/- not claimed by the appellant." 12. Since the issue is alre....