2025 (8) TMI 279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4.2019 for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is engaged in the manufacture and fabrication of tippers and concrete mixtures, filed its return of income admitting a loss of Rs. 3,12,52,199/- on 30.11.2012 and the return was summarily processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act'). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In view of change in the incumbent, fresh opportunity was accorded to the assessee on 07.10.2014 vide notice dated 08.09.2014. In response to the notices, assessee's representative appeared and filed the information called for, from time to tim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gfully claimed the depreciation by stating that the assessee company has made trail runs, which is not evident from the records. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing." 5. The only issue emanating from the grounds raised by the revenue are with respect to the allowance of depreciation by the Ld. CIT(A) amounting to Rs. 2,66,81,164/-. On this issue, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short "Ld. DR"] submitted that the assets are not put to use since there are no evidences for the commencement of business by the assessee. Ld. DR vehemently argued that just because incurring of inauguration expenses does not amount to commencement of business by the assessee or the machinery being put to use eith....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....apital work-in-progress includes raw materials purchased for production. He therefore pleaded that the asset was ready to use during the impugned assessment year and the Company has claimed the depreciation in accordance with the provisions of Act. He therefore, pleaded that order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record including the written submissions of both the parties. It is the contention of the Ld.AR that the assessee has set-up its business during the impugned assessment year and since the assessee did not receive any orders for the products to be manufactured, it did not commence production activity till the end of the previous year. It is noticed that Ld. CIT(A) ha....