2019 (11) TMI 315

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Leave granted. Heard Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Advocate in support of the appeal and Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned ASG for the respondent. The judgment under appeal was passed by the High Court in Income Tax Appeal No.660 of 2018. For the sake of facility, the questions which were raised in the appeal memo are set-out as under: "A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in upholding the disallowance of depreciation to the tune of Rs. 5,10,79,752/- claimed on account of Asset Reconstruction Cost ('ARC') being an ascertained liability, or alternatively allowing deduction for such expenditure in the year of execution of lease agreements or over the period of lease? B. Whether....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reasonable and perverse in nature, having been arrived at by improper rejection of evidence/material available on record of the proceedings or having been based substantial on conjectures, surmises and suspicious? It must be mentioned that said appeal stands admitted as regards Questions 'A & C' while as regards Question 'D' onwards, the matter stands remitted to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. We are thus left with the issue regarding refusal of the High Court to consider Question 'B' as substantial question of law. The discussion in the Order under appeal regarding Question 'B' was as under: "The assessee has urged other questions. He submits that the installation of cell-site towers did not amount to extension of existing busin....