2014 (5) TMI 1125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Counsel for the assessee at the outset, although there are as many as four grounds raised in the appeal of the Revenue, the relief allowed by the ld. CIT(A) which is disputed therein is only to the extent of Rs. 7,85,679/- and the tax effect involved in the appeal of the Revenue is less than the monetary limit of Rs. 3 lacs fixed by the CBDT vide Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 9-2-2011 reported in (2011) 332 ITR 1 (Statutes) for filing the appeals before the Tribunal. The ld. D.R. has not disputed this position clearly evident from the orders of the authorities below. In CIT vs. Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF) (2009) 318 ITR 148 (Bom), it was held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that the revised monetary limit fixed by the CBDT in the circular ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....asset in the form of commercial right as per provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the income Tax Act, 1961 as amended w.e.f. 1-4-1998. This claim of the assessee, however, was not found acceptable by the A.O. for the following reasons:- "1) The MCX membership right is not an asset but a deposit or a personal privilege granted to a member for trading rights on the MCX platform. 2) Depreciation is allowable on an asset on account of wear and tear and obsolescence. The MCX card is not subject to such wear and tear on account of use." 6. For the reasons given above and relying on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Techno Shares and Stock Ltd., 323 ITR 69 wherein depreciation on BSE cards was held....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oratisation and Demutualisation and keeping in view the said scheme, it was held by the Tribunal that depreciation claimed by the assessee on the shares of Bombay Stock Exchange could not be allowed. The facts involved in the cases of Sino Securities (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Sunidhi Consultancy Services (supra) decided by the Tribunal thus are materially different from the facts of the present case inasmuch as the assessee in the present case has paid non-refundable admission fees for acquiring trading rights in Multi Commodity Exchange Ltd. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in this regard has relied on the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pyramid Commodities vs. ITO rendered vide its order dated 28-8-2013 passed in....