Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2018 (10) TMI 1428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct 1961(hereinafter called as the 'Act') framed on 10.01.2017 by ITO-2, Ratlam. 2. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal; "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 27,88,184/- made on account of incorrect depreciation claimed by the assessee. (Note - The case is covered under the exceptions mentioned in para 8(c) of Circular 21/2015. 3. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee being an individual carries the business under sole proprietorship concern M/s. Rahul Steel & Foods Industries. The original return of income was filed on 21.09.2012 in which Income of Rs. 4,22,050/- was declared which was subseque....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue application of' the mind. The AO IS not correct in - withdrawing the claim of the appellant In respect of the depreciation u/s 154 of the LT. Act. The appellant in the audited balance sheet was having the fixed assets. The appellant is entitled for the depreciation on fixed assets. The appellant owns godown and rent has been received from MPWCL. The same view has also been upheld by Hon'ble ITA T, Indore in the case of Sudha Devi Oswal Vs JCIT, Ratlam Appeal No. ITA No. 212/Ind/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 order dated 16-11-2015. Therefore the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 27,88,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, the appeal on these grounds is allowed". 5. Aggrieved revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal raising sole ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....other sources and therefore no addition of the impugned interest of income of Rs. 1,07,955/- was called for. 9. Ld.CIT(A) has wrongly mentioned the depreciation amount at Rs. 27,88,184/- because the actual depreciation claim made by the assessee in the computation of income is Rs. 26,80,229/-. Therefore our adjudication now is limited to the depreciation claim of Rs. 26,80,229/-. This amount of depreciation includes depreciation of Rs. 20,76,428/- claimed on the Written Down Value (In short 'WDV') of machinery and Rs. 6,03,801/- claimed on the WDV on the factory building. 10. As far as the contention of the assessee that the claim of depreciation is eligible in the income tax return even if the same has not been claimed in the book....