TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts merits to be set aside. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 21,23,090/-on 29/09/2008. The income declared was comprised of rental income, interest income and excess provision written back . The case was taken up for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short the 'Act') was issued and served within the stipulated period. In the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that no receipt under the head profit and gains from the business was shown by the assessee whereas deduction for expenses was claimed under the head. The Assessing Officer further noted from the profit and loss account that the assessee did not carry out any business or professional activity in the current financial year as well as in the preceding year and income in both the years was comprising of rental income, interest income and excess provision written back. In response to the query of the Assessing Officer as to why the loss claimed under the head profit and gains of business may not be disallowed, the assessee submitted that the assessee company had been doing business and earned huge commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax versus Dalmia Promoters Developers Private Limited reported in (2006) 281 ITR 346 (Del). The Ld. Authorised Representative in support of proposition of the assessee that the expenditure is allowable even if there is no income in the particular year, relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax versus Rajendra Prasad Moody reported in 115 ITR 519 (SC). On the other hand, the Ld. Senior Departmental Representative, relying on the order of the lower authorities submitted that no business or professional receipts were shown by the assessee during the year and as such no deduction for expenses towards business or profession was allowable to the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is a fact that the assessee has not shown any receipt from business or profession during the year but claimed expenses in the nature of Establishment Expenses, Administrative and General Expenses, Financial Charges and the Depreciation under the head profit and gains of the Business or profession. Before us, the assessee has submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasijudicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity." 9. Following the above decisions, this Court has in A.R.J. Security Printers' case (supra) and CIT vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Del), held that even when the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, where an issue has been decided consistently in a particular manner for earlier assessment years, the same view should prevail even during the subsequent years unless there is a material change in the facts. The law is, therefore, fairly well settled. For rejecting the view taken for the earlier assessment years, there must be a material change in the fact situation. There is no gainsaying that the previous view will have no application even in cases where the law itself has undergone a change but before an earlier view can be upset or digressed from, one of the two must be demonstrated namely a change in the fact situation or a material change in law whether enacted or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer has also disallowed the depreciation of Rs. 94,330/-on building on the ground that the building was let out and the rental income from the same was claimed under the head income from house property and thus necessary deduction has already been allowed under that head. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted that depreciation was claimed on the building which was for the personal use of the assessee, notwithstanding the fact that the substantial portion of the building was rented out and the standard deduction under section 24 was claimed and therefore the depreciation claimed in the circumstances merits to be suitably adjusted vis-a-vis the claim preferred. However the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire depreciation of Rs. 94,330/-. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax( Appeals) have noted in his order that there was no serious objections from the assessee for the proposed action of the Assessing Officer and even no arguments were made before him in appellate proceedings. The disallowance of depreciation was accordingly confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax( Appeals). However before us, the Ld. Authorised Representative disputed the findi....