2024 (7) TMI 579

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y, illegal and unjust both is fact and law, hence liable to be quashed. 2. For that Pr. CIT(Central) erred in exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act by substituting his subjective opinion in place of the opinion formed by the assessing office. Since no jurisdiction u/s 263 can be exercised on change of opinion the present order is without jurisdiction, hence liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. For that Ld. Pr. CIT erred in passing order u/s. 263 of the IT act by going against the law settled by the jurisdiction High court and without making a minimal enquiry. Therefore the order passed u/s 263 of the IT Act is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. For that Ld. Pr. CIT erred in exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e following reasons :- The assessee company has claimed depreciation of Rs. 2,68,25,107/- which includes depreciation on plant and machinery of Rs. 2,49,98,060/- as per IT Act 1961. On examination of records it is noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation @30% on certain plant and machinery though the assessee is engaged in the business of construction. The assessee has shown hiring income of Rs. 22,44,997/- which constitutes 0.20% of total revenue from its business operation. However, the assessee has claimed depreciation @30% on plant and machinery where as its involvement in the business of relevant hiring busses and lorries was significantly low during the relevant period. Therefore, depreciation allowable on net assets is @1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the purpose for which assets are put to use and nor the dominant income, for which he relied upon on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gupta Global Exim (P.) Ltd., passed in Civil Appeal No.3342 of 2008. He, therefore, submitted that the basic allegation of the ld. Pr.CIT for invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act is not correct and, prayed for quashing of the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act by the ld. Pr.CIT. 6. Per Contra, the ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the ld. Pr.CIT and submitted that the assessee has claimed depreciation @30% on the block of plant and machinery which includes machinery used for construction business also and it is not a case that the entire plant and machinery were giv....