2007 (2) TMI 213

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Tribunal) in ITA No.4778/Del/03 for the assessment year 2000-01. By the said order the claim made by the Appellant under Section 32(1)(iii) of the Act for write off of discarded/obsolete machinery amounting to Rs.40,83,828/- was disallowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Appellant-company is engaged in manufacturing and trading of floppy and other computer consumables. Till the close of the immediately preceding year relevant to assessment year 1999-2000, it had been manufacturing computer floppies. The plant and machinery installed in the financial year 1984-85 and 1994 had been extensively used by it for this purpose. As the technology in the field of computer consumables had advanced manifold since the installation of the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been allowed and such assets should form part of the Block of Assets on which depreciation was claimed in the earlier years.  It does not mandate that such assets should have been used in the year of discarding, demolition and sale. User of machinery in the year of discarding, demolition and sale etc. is not mandatory condition. The interpretation given by the Tribunal that, user of machinery in the year of discarding, demolition or sale etc. is one of the mandatory condition for allowing deduction under Section 32(1)(iii) of the Act, is not correct. 6. On the other hand it has been argued by the learned counsel for the Revenue that no infirmity can be found with the order of the Tribunal and in its support learned counsel cited ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the business during the previous year in which the machinery is sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed. There is no dispute between the parties on this issue. The only dispute is as to whether the machinery was so, used or not. 9. There is a concurrent finding of three authorities below, i.e. the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (A) and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the effect that the machinery was not put to use at all during the relevant previous year. 10. We do not find any reason to differ with the finding of fact recorded by all these authorities and there is nothing on record to show that the machinery in question was put to use during the relevant previous year. 11. In case of Maharashtra Minerals Corporat....