TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (11) TMI 718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the action of the respondent in restricting the claim in terms of Section 32AB of the Act excluding the rental and interest income? 2. The necessary facts as culled out from the statement of facts are as follows: The appellant was a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar. For the relevant assessment year 1989-90, while computing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, the assessing officer allowed depreciation of Rs. 2,49,06,101/- which included depreciation claimed by the assessee on energy saving equipment at Rs. 98,66,304/-. The assessee had claimed depreciation at 100% on those equipment, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m but in other respect the revisional order was confirmed. The correctness of the said order is now canvassed before us. 6. In respect of the first question of law, it was contended by the counsel for the assessee that as per depreciation Table Appendix I, the depreciation allowance for energy saving devises was 100% under item Nos. (i) (iii). The devises were installed by the assessee during the previous year ending 31.2.1989. So, for the assessment year 1989-90, the depreciation allowable was 100% of the cost of the assets. As per Rule 5 of the Tenth Schedule, the depreciation allowable was in proportion to the number of months in the previous year. For the assessment year 1989-90, the transitional previous year extending to a period of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of law on which the appeal has been admitted is very general in nature questioning the correctness of the order of the Tribunal in sustaining the action of the Commissioner invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Revenue, the Commissioner has invoked the revisional power under Section 263 on being satisfied that the order of assessment was not only erroneous in nature, but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further, it could be seen from the revisional order as well as the order of the Tribunal, the correctness of the invocation of Section 263 was never been an issue for consideration before the authorities. Hence, the contention on behalf of the revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntention of the Legislature, if one have regard to the concept of depreciation with reference to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, which provided that depreciation would be allowed in the case of block of assets such percentage on the written down value, as prescribed in Rule 5 of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal has also taken note of the Circular No. 549 dated 31.10.1998 issued by the C.B.D.T. after the introduction of Tenth Schedule by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 with effect from 1st April, 1989 stating the scope and effect of the Schedule and also referred Paragraph No. 2.8 which dealt with the transitory provisions for the assessment year 1989-90. The Board Circular proceeded as follows: (iv) Rule 5 provides th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect of depreciation of assets acquired on or after 1st day of April, 1997 shall be calculated at the percentage specified in the second column of the Table in Appendix 1A of these rules on the actual cost thereof to the assessee as are used for the purposes of the business of the assessee at any time during the previous year. It also provided that the aggregate depreciation allowed in respect of any asset for different assessment years shall not exceed the actual cost of the said assets. The proviso to Sub-rule 1A clearly restricted that the aggregate of the depreciation allowed in respect of any asset should not exceed the actual cost of that asset. 12. Thus, even on merits, the assessee has not made out any case in this appeal for t....