2011 (3) TMI 1597

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....TICE AKIL KURESHI) Revenue is in Appeal, challenging the judgment dated 9th January 2009, seeking to raise the following questions :- [A] "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT [A] in allowing the claim of assessee for depreciation on assets leased out to RSEB amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,801/= ? [B] "Whether the Appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l by the assessee. CIT [A], by Order dated 25th March 2008 ruled in favour of the assessee. Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by impugned order dated 9th January 2009, dismissed the appeal relying on the previous decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Unimed Technologies Limited vs. DCIT [(2008) 73 ITD 150]. The decision of the Tribunal is under challenge b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the transaction of sale-cum-lease back agreement and Rajasthan High Court has found that the Tribunal had rightly appreciated the facts and correctly found the transaction to be genuine and such a finding could not be treated to be perverse. 7. Admittedly, the transaction in question which the High Court of Rajasthan was called upon to deal with is the same transaction which has been found to b....