2023 (1) TMI 283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sted by the appellant/assessee are as follows : i) Whether the directions of the Tribunal to the Assessing Officer to de novo consider allowance of depreciation on purchase of stock exchange membership card in the sum of Rs. 70,00,000/- being the development fee paid for admission to the Calcutta Stock Exchange under section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended and applicable to the appellant for the Assessment year 1996-97 is perverse ? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in not allowing depreciation on the Calcutta Stock Exchange membership card which is `a tool to trade' in the business of share trading and broking business, hence akin to `a plant' and eligible for depreciation as Plant und....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(3) of the Act. The CIT(A) rejected such contention by order dated 23rd November, 1999. This order was impugned before the Tribunal and by the impugned order the learned Tribunal accepted the stand taken by the assessee and held that the said alternate ground was agitated by the assessee and considered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal and payment of Rs.70 lacs on account of development fee paid by the assessee has been held to be capital in nature and therefore the claim for depreciation has to be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Act. For such reason the issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the claim in the light of the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal considering the same as capital....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en relied upon to contend that membership of Stock Exchange is a personal permission from the Exchange to exercise the rights and privileges attached thereto, it is not a private asset. In our considered view, the applicability of these decisions need not be gone into for the simple reason that as against the decision of the Special Bench nor as against the decision of the Tribunal impugned this appeal, revenue had not preferred any appeal. That apart, we note that in the impugned order the learned Tribunal has limited the scope of the direction by directing the plea of depreciation alone to be considered. In our considered view, the learned Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the claim for depreciation made by the assessee has t....