Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2017 (11) TMI 906

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lding. 2. The appellant craves leave to add/delete/modify the grounds of appeal." 2. After hearing the rival contentions we find that the First Appellate Authority has recorded that the assets in question is part of the "block of assets". He held that once the asset merges with the existing block of assets, which carry the same rate of depreciation and one asset of the block is put to use then the entire block would be eligible to depreciation. 3. The 'B " Bench of this tribunal in ITA No.2008/Kol/2014 for A.Y.2005-06 held as follows :- "4.1.1. Even otherwise, under the block of assets concept, the requirement of. using of the plant and machinery, by the assessee, during the Financial Year, does not arise. For this proposition we re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it during *the assessment years in question, as the assessee was not entitled to any scrap value . whatsoever; consequent to discarding. Coming to the case law relied upon by the Id. Departmental Representative and by the Id. CIT(A), all of them are distinguishable as all these cases dealt with grant of depreciation for -assessment years before the in troduction of the concept of depreciation on "block assets." . Thus, we uphold the claim of the assessee for depreciation for both the assessment years and $et aside the order of the Id. CIT(A). 5. Respectfully following the propositions of law laid down in the above judicial precedent, we allow this claim of the assessee." 4. In our view the proposition of law laid down in this order app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee-company did not get back the diesel generating set because of the lock-out declared in the lessee's factory. Lock outs and strikes are the usual business hazards that a company has to face in course of running of the business. The fact that the lock- out was not in theassessee's own business does not make any difference to the position. The assessee had leased out a generating set in course of its business. It could not get back the set even after the lease period because of the lockout in the lessee's factory. This is a happening which was incidental to the assessee's business of leasing out generating sets. The assessee itself was not actually running the generating sets. The assessee's business was leasing out....