TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1709
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Delhi has passed order in appeal no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048556170(1) dated 09.01.2023 through ITBA The order of the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi has neither been communicated to this stakeholder nor any alert on passing on the order by the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC. Delhi has been sent either through SMS or through email or through any other mode by the Departmental system network to this office Orders of the Ld. CIT (A) are downloaded from the Departmental system on manual checking basis. During the period of January, 2023 to August, 2023 this stakeholder was under pressure of disposing time barring matters. For this reason and due to non-availability of system resources, the searching of appeal order in ITBA systems could not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ission of the appellant. It is seen that the assessing officer has disallowed the depreciation claimed by the appellant company in view of the observation that no business activities were carried out by the appellant. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has stated that in its own case on the same issue in the earlier year ie. A.Y. 2004-05, the assessing officer has disallowed the claim of depreciation The matter for the A.Y. 2004-05 travelled upto ITAT and the ITAT has allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant in ITA No. ITA 1325/Kol/2007 dated 19.12.2014. Since, the depreciation was allowed by the ITAT in assessee own case for the A.Y 2004-05, the same is also allowed for the A.Y 2005-06 i.e. year under considerat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....held that assessee after having shown in its own account is estopped from claiming depreciation in the Income Tax returns consequently, disallowed carry forward of the balance loss. Therefore, cardinal question to be answered in this appeal is whether in view of the aforesaid capitalization in its account debar the appellant from claiming allowance of depreciation in the return before officer concerned. On fact it is not disputed that the plant and machinery equipment's are assets and was utilized for the business. The above question we have summarized has been answered by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in case of Sakthi Soyus Lad (supra). In that judgment it was held on the principle of law as follows "Capitalisation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in case of Berger Pan India) Lat (supra) while taking note of the old decision of the Supreme Court in case of Kedarnath Jate Mig Cao Lak v CIT (1971) 82 (TB 362 and CIT v India Discount Co. Ltd. [1970] 75 ITR 191) held that if according to the revenue laws the assessee is entitled to treat a sum as a revenue expenditure, then that legal right of the assessee is not self estopped by the treatment given by the assessee to it in its own books of account. 11. b appears that the authorities below have heavily relied on the account in view of Section 145 of the Act. In view of sub section (3) of the same the sand sub-section has given ample discretion of the assessee with regard to correctness and completeness of any account of the asse....