2015 (5) TMI 271

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... P Roy Chaudhary, Advs. For the Respondent : None JUDGMENT Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (Open Court) 1. The revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). It contends that the assessee's claim for depreciation for assessment year (AY) 2009-10 was, in the circumstances of the case, wrongly permitted. The revenue's appeal against the order of the C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wed, who took note, inter alia, of two facts i.e. for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08, depreciation had been allowed in scrutiny assessment and that for AY 2009-10, in the reply to queries under Section 133(6), one of the assessee's sub-distributors had confirmed that the machinery on the site was provided. The revenue's appeal was rejected by the ITAT. The impugned order holds as follows: "6. W....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e's business of online lottery the assessee has demonstrated the use of the assets along with the sub-distributor. The subsequent upgradation of the software and machinery etc. though may be with the sub distributor the fact remains that the assessee's assets were also used. It is not the case of the revenue that the upgradation expenditure was not incurred by the sub-distributor and it ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Section 143(3) after due enquiries were conducted by the AO. There is nothing on the record to suggest that those were either erroneous or based on premises which did not disclose relevant details. The revenue's attempt in reopening the assessment of 2009-10, by relying upon statement of one of the sub-distributors also failed because the said concern, M/s Best & Company, in fact confirmed the....