2012 (11) TMI 1326

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icial Member For the Assessee : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate. For the Department : Dr. S. Moharana, IRS, CIT. ORDER Per Dr. O.K. Narayanan, Vice-President These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue for the assessment year 2003-04. They are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Incometax(Appeals)-IV at Chennai, dated 16-9-2011. They arise out of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th law. This ground is rejected. 3. The second issue raised by the assessee is that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has erred in treating the project asset developed by the assessee as 'building', instead of 'plant', as claimed by the assessee for the purpose of depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is to be seen that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has j....

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(Appeals) and this ground is also liable to be rejected. 4. Now, coming to the appeal filed by the Revenue, the ground is that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has erred in allowing the depreciation claim of the assessee on project assets at the rate of 10% applicable to buildings. It is the case of the Revenue that the assessee is not entitled for any amount of depreciation, ....