2017 (8) TMI 1704

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Court in appeals Nos. 279, 301 and 288/2015. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 22.09.2015 disposed of the issue of depreciation involved in appeals, observing that "in the considered view of the Court, there has been no occasion for the ITAT to seriously consider whether, for the AYs in question, there were any working units of the Assessee and if, in fact, the entire block of assets in respect of which depreciation was claimed was actually put to use. The ITAT also did not consider that there is no longer a requirement for the COD to grant permission to the Revenue to file an appeal.". The Hon'ble High Court vide para 10 of the order, therefore, directed the Tribunal as under : "10. Consequently, the appeals....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and office equipments like computers and others were used for day to day office operation and depreciation was charged on those items only; that only operation of the plants was suspended but the units were not closed completely. The AO did not concur with the reply of assessee, stating that out of total units run by the assessee, seven units stood completely closed, as is evident from the order of BIFR dated 05.12.2005, wherein it has been mentioned that "the 2nd phase to be implemented during 2006-07 and 2007-08, is proposed to be funded out of the sale proceeds of the non-operating units". The AO therefore, observed that above units were completely closed down and the manufacturing activities were not temporarily suspended as stated by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Carbide (I) Ltd. , 254 ITR 488 (Cal.) (ii). M/s. Swati Synthetics Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 1165/M/2006 dt. 17.12.2009- Mumbai Tribunal) (iii). G.R. Shipping Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA 822/Mum/05 dt. 17.07.2008- Mumbai Tribunal) 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the material available on record. From the above factual matrix and the contentions of both the parties, we find that the assessee has made two fold contentions in the instant case, inasmuch as, before the AO the assessee contended that all the plant and machinery were fully charged off and only the generator set and office equipments like computers etc. were used for day to day office operation and depreciation was charged on those items on....