2017 (2) TMI 278

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ahd/2000 raising the following substantial question of law : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to depreciation on plant and machinery not put to use during the year under consideration ?" 1.1 Tax Appeal No. 71 of 2009 is filed against the order dated June 13, 2008 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 2455/Ahd/2000 raising the following substantial question of law : "Whether on facts the Tribunal's finding and conclusion of upholding the disallowance of Rs. 32,81,666 towards claim of depreciation is 'vitiated' on facts and sustainable in law on interpretation of section 32 ?" 1.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessee in Tax Appeal Nos.1203 of 2006 to 1205 of 2006, learned counsel Mr. B. D. Karia for the assessee in Tax Appeal No. 71 of 2009 and learned counsel Mr. Sudhir Mehta for the Revenue. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the authorities below as also the Tribunal did not allow deduction mainly on the ground that the assets for which depreciation was claimed, was not put to actual use for the year under consideration or that a part of the assets were not installed for undertaking the manufacturing process. It was submitted that the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous since it is not necessary that all assets falling within plant and machinery have to be simultaneously used for being ent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. Sudhir Mehta placed reliance upon the decision of Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal v. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 768 (Bom) and of the Karnataka High Court rendered in Deputy CIT v. Yel lamma Dasappa Hospital [2007] 290 ITR 353 (Karn). 8. The record reveals that the reason assigned by the Assessing Officer for rejecting the depreciation is that the assessee had stopped the manufacturing activity and therefore, the question of use of machinery does not arise. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reversed the findings of the Assessing Officer on the premise that individual items included in the block are not to be considered separately for the purposes of granting depreciation in light of the ....