2015 (6) TMI 810

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and Mr. P Roy Chaudhury, Advs. ORDER 1. The revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). It contends that claim for depreciation for assessment year (AY) 2008-09 was, in the circumstances of the case, wrongly permitted. The revenue's appeal against the order of the CIT(Appeals) was rejected by the impugned order. 2. The assessee provides online lottery se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....owed in scrutiny assessment and that for AY 2009-10 i.e. the subsequent year, 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. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record, Fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the use of the assets along with the subdistributor. 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 has been claimed by the assessee. This is so because in that case asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ect of other sub-distributors, no information was forthcoming and consequently the AO was justified in disallowing the depreciation. 5. This Court has considered the submissions. It is a matter of record that for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08, the assessments were completed under Section 143(3) after due enquiries were conducted by the AO. There is nothing on the record to suggest that those were eith....