2019 (7) TMI 186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earned Tribunal was justified in holding that the depreciation allowances worked-out even after eight subsequent assessment years is allowable, ignoring the amendment to Section 32(2) by the Finance Act, 2001? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Tribunal, by relying on the decision of a Hon'ble High Court not within its jurisdiction, was justified in holding that the depreciation allowances worked-out even after eight subsequent assessment years are allowable, as such a decision is not binding upon it? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Tribunal was justified in not considering the finding of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in its d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Income Tax-1, Mumbai Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. reported in (2016) 72 taxmann.com 325 (Bombay), so also the judgment of Gujarat High Court in case of General Motors India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2012) 25 taxmann.com 364 (Guj.). The learned also relies on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Accura Polytech (P.) Ltd. reported in (2018) 89 taxmann.com 183 (Gujarat). According to the learned counsel the said judgment has been confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP No.29228/2018 under order dated 10.09.2018. 5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 6. It is a matter of record that for the Asses....