2024 (4) TMI 1395

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unds of appeal : "1. The CIT (A) erred in allowing Rs. 5,62,220/- on account of fixed assets on which project subsidy was received from National Dairy Development Board as the department has contested the issue before the Supreme Court. 2. The CIT (A) erred in allowing Rs. 1,61,18,757/- on account of additional depreciation as in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2014-15 the CIT (A) had disallowed the said expenditure. 3. The CIT (A) erred in allowing Rs. 13,25,417/- on account of Mahila Netrutva Vikas Gokul Gram Expenditure as self-made vouchers cannot be accepted as cogent evidence." Submission of ld.AR : 2. At the outset of hearing, no one attended on behalf of the assessee. No one appeared ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rlier years, against which the Revenue had not filed any ground, though it had filed the appeal in respect of said orders of Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court thus, dismissed the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in this regard. Applying the said ratio, we dismiss the ground of appeal No. 3 raised by the Revenue. 4.3 Thus, respectfully following the ITAT Pune Bench decision in ITA Nos. 2726 & 2727/PUN/2016, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 2 - Additional Depreciation : 5. In the para 10 of the assessment order, it is mentioned that assessee had claimed additional depreciation of Rs. 1,16,18,757/- in respect of purchase of plant and machinery in preceding previous year. 5.1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the current year. In support of its claim for additional depreciation the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the ITAT, Pune in the cases of Dy.CIT vs Shri Madhavan Nanu Pillai in ITA No. 2222/PN/2013 and honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT V/s Rittal India (P) Ltd. 14. I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant on this issue. I find that my predecessor has been dismissing this ground for the earlier AYs, against which the appellant had filed further appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune Bench. I further find that vide order dated 18/12/2018 for AYs 2009-10 to 2011-12 in ITA Nos. 616 to 618/PUN/2016, the ITAT has allowed this ground of appeal. This 3rd ground raised before me ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nch has already upheld the CIT(A)'s findings as the very issue is preceding AYs 2009- 10 onwards (supra). We thus adopt judicial consistency to reject the Revenue's instant latter substantive ground in very terms in absence of any distinction. 5. This Revenue's appeal is dismissed in above terms." 5.2 Thus, respectfully following the judicial consistency, the Revenue's Ground of additional depreciation is dismissed. Ground No. 3 : 6. This ground is regarding disallowance of Rs. 13,25,417/-. In the assessment order in para 9, it is mentioned that assessee had debited Rs. 26,50,833/- on account of Mahila Netrutva Vikas Gokul Gram. The assessee claimed that assessee had organised training programmes to educate ....