2015 (12) TMI 112

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aw for our consideration: (a) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation in respect of plant & machinery of discontinued business without appreciating the fact that the basic condition for claiming depreciation u/s. 32 of the Act is the "use of asset" for business purpose of the assessee? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in holding the plant and machinery of discontinued business, which is not likely to be revived, in a block of asset with written down value is eligible for claim of depreciation? (c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....preciation of Rs. 16.96 lacs. (c) On further appeal to the Tribunal the impugned order held that the refining machinery was a part of the block of assets of plant and machinery. In such a case depreciation is granted to the entire block of assets whether or not an individual item therein has been used during the subject assessment year. In support the impugned order placed reliance upon its decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Boskalis Dredging India (P) Ltd. 53 SOT 17 (Mum) wherein it has been held that once the concept of block of assets was brought into effect from assessment year 1989-90 onwards then the aggregate of written down value of all the assets in the block at the beginning of the previous year along with additions made to the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tertained. 4. Re:question No.(c) (a) During the subject assessment year there was fire in the chemical plant of the respondent at Pithampur. The respondent had debited an amount of Rs. 21.68 lacs in its profit & loss account as loss due to fire. This was the difference between the amount claimed for repairs due to fire from the Insurance company and that granted. The Assessing Officer disallowed the loss claimed to the extent of Rs. 10.82 lacs being attributable to fixed assets i.e. factory building, plant & machinery. Therefore not revenue in nature. (b) In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not disturb the finding of the Assessing Officer. On further appeal the Tribunal by the impugned order accepted the respond....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....26 lacs to Rs. 1. This devaluation of a part of its closing stock was in respect of packing material which were used for goods which were non moving items. This resulted in the packing material had remaining unsold in its possession for the long period of time and had now become obsolete. The Assessing Officer did not accept the devaluation of the closing stock to Rs. 1/- holding that the same is contrary to Section 145A of the Act. (b) On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not disturb the findings of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the details of subsequent sale of the stock were not furnished. On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order held that on the basis of the record available that packing ma....