1986 (4) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the depreciation in respect of the assets already allowed has to be considered ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in computing the capital employed for the purpose of deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the written down value of the assets has to be considered as per the income-tax records and not as per the assessee's books ? " The following questions have also been referred for the opinion of this court as questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue : " 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, an appeal preferred by an assessee who had not filed any objection to the draft assessment or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e would be taken into account. Therefore, the written down value of the assets has to be determined in accordance with the Act. It is settled that in the case of assets acquired in the accounting year, the written down value means the actual cost to the assessee. In the case of assets acquired before the accounting year, the written down value means the actual cost of acquisition less the aggregate of all deductions of depreciation actually allowed (not merely allowable) to the assessee in past years. To the extent as above, the depreciation already allowed would have to be considered. The answer to the two questions raised by the assessee is given as stated above. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Lohia Machines Ltd.'s c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o appeal to the Privy Council against an order passed by the High Court rejecting an application under section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for direction to the Commissioner to state a case before the High Court. This decision is of little relevance to the question before us. The learned advocate also cited Ramanlal Kamdar v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 73, where it was held by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court that where the assessee did not object to the proposed revision of assessment, no appeal lay to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner from the revised assessment and, consequently, further appeal to the Tribunal and reference to the High Court should also be held to be incompetent. The High Court declined to answer the ....