TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A.Y. 1997-98 vide order dated 21.10.2010 under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). 2. The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) directing the AO to verify the claim of depreciation in regard to lease assets and according to Revenue the CIT(A) should not have set aside the assessment under section 251 of the Act as the CIT(A) has no power to set aside the issue. Secondly, the Revenue has also contested the issue on merits. For this Revenue has raised the following ground No. 3 and 4: - "3. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify each claim of the assessee, therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....booked Rs. Int. component Capital component Rs. Nath Pulp & Paer Mills Ltd. Industrial Pipelines Nath Pulp & Papers Ltd. 20.02.95 17033184 8106061 8927123 Rama Pulp & Papers Ltd. Plant & Mach Rama Pulp & Papers Ltd. 09.09,96 0 1168301 0 17033184 9274362 8927123 4. In view of the above, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal in AY 1996-97 in ITA No. 4430/Mum/2016 vide order dated 23.04.2018 wherein Tribunal after considering the issue in detail has allowed the claim of the assessee dismissing the Revenue's appeal vide Para 12 and 13 as under: - 12. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) after examining the details furnished by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of M/s. Avasalara Technologies Ltd. Vs JCIT, Sp. Rg. 1, Bangalore dated 30.03.2015 vide appeal no. 2996 of 2004 wherein it is held that there was no question of law involved and it is purely on facts and accordingly, the; appeal is dismissed. It is in favour of the department. The relevant portion is as under: "The appellant-assesse herein claimed depreciation on certain machinery allegedly purchased from Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'APSEB' for short) vide sale deed dated 29.09.1995 which as per the appellant, was given to the APSEB itself on lease. All the authorities below have found, as a fact, that there was no such purchase of machinery and the transaction in question is sham. On ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to verify each such claim and be satisfied that the supplier and lessee should not be one at the same. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed on this ground. 13. On a perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A), we see that the Ld.CIT(A) held that in the transactions by the assessee with Nath Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd., the disallowance on depreciation was confirmed for the reason that both supplier as well as the lessee are found to be Nath Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd., itself. However, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the rest of depreciations claim over the assets which were purchased from third parties by the assessee company and entered into sale and lease back agreement with different parties are eligible to claim depreciation. However, he directed t....