2012 (7) TMI 976

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Representative before us submitted that in the instant appeal, two substantive grounds have been raised ie. claim of deduction under sec.35D of the Act of Rs. 18,53,614/- of share premium amount and that of additional depreciation of Rs. 66,07,471/-, disallowed by Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals).  He has fairly stated that he does not wish to press the first ground.  Therefore, he has submitted that CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming disallowance of additional depreciation made by Assessing Officer.  The Authorised Representative's submission has been opposed by Departmental Representative who has supported the order.  Therefore, we frame following issue for adjudication :- "Whether order of CIT(Appeals) confir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ently argued that the depreciation as claimed by the Assessee is a statutory deduction which has to be granted to the Assessee even if the same is not claimed.  In support thereof, he has referred to statutory provisions, more particularly Explanation 5 of sec.32(1)(ii) of the Act.  Regarding case law of Goetz India (supra) he clarified that the said decision does not impinge upon the power of the ITAT under sec.254 of the Act. 6. The Departmental Representative has opposed the Authorised Representative's submissions and placed reliance in CIT(Appeals)'s order. 7. We have considered rival contentions at length and also perused the relevant findings as well as case law referred.  We find that admittedly, the Assessee had....