TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the department confirming the order of CIT(A). 3. This Court while admitting the matter framed following questions of law:- In DBITA No. 209/2017 "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble ITAT was legally correct in holding that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction of depreciation of Rs. 1,25,68,398/- on the assets which were claimed as application u/s 11 at the time of purchase?" In DBITA No. 253/2017 "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. ITAT is legally correct in holding that the depreciation of Rs. 69,30,996/- on the asset which were claimed as application u/s 11 at the time of purchase?" 4. Now the issue is squarely covered as stated by counsel for the respondent in case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rightly allowed depreciation claimed by the assessee on capital assets for which capital expenditure was already given in the year under consideration." 4.1. He has relied upon another decision in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mahima Shiksha Samiti (DBITA No. 262/2017) decided on 3rd October, 2017 wherein it has been held as under:- "17. On the other issue, whether the expenses which are granted or which has been considered by the authority, he relied upon the judgment of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II vs. Consulting Engineering Group Ltd. (2014) 365 ITR 284 wherein it has been held as under:- 17. In view of what we have discussed hereinabove, on all the three issues, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sideration was getting only Rs. 1,000 p.m. just in the preceding year. So far paralytic attack to the assessee is concerned, it happened in the year 1983. The assessee has carried on the business even after paralytic attack without the help of these two sons. 6. We also notice that in the preceding year i.e., 1991, assessee has disclosed income of Rs, 70,000. This year he has disclosed only income of Rs. 45,673. On these facts, there is no justification of paying such heavy salary to the sons of the assessee, who are employed by the assessee for the purpose of his business. 7. It is also pertinent to note that what should be the reasonable salary is basically a question of fact and Tribunal is a fact-finding final body in this regard. Fin....