TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A. No. 4769/Mum/2019, are three separate appeals by the revenue preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) - 8, Mumbai, [hereinafter 'the ld. CIT(A)'] pertaining to AY 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17. 2. The revenue is aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) and has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA Nos. 3632/Mum/2018 for AY 2013-14:- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 4,44,07,662/- claimed by the assessee in respect of Iron Ore rights, without appreciating the fact that the shareholders of RRS Minerals i.e., Mr. Bharat Bussa and Mrs. Rita Bussa who got 15.75 crores each as per the agreement d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issue was not examined and it is the impugned assessment year only that the facts in respect of depreciation in respect of Iron Ore Rights disallowed by AO were verified and brought on record by the AO? 3. (c) Whether in view of the above facts the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Madhukar C. Ashar vs. Union of India [2016] 69 taxmann.com 221 (Bombay), correctly applied and relied on by the CIT(A)? 4. The appellant craves leave to amend, alter, delete or add grounds which may be necessary" 3. The captioned appeals by the revenue were disposed by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 20/06/2022 and the Co-ordinate Bench has allowed the captioned appeals in favour of the revenue and against th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y argued that once the order is recalled, the assessee is free to argue the issues raised before the Tribunal earlier and all the issues need to be decided afresh. The ld. D/R strongly opposed to this and stated that recall was only for the limited purpose to consider the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Shri Adhikari Brothers Television Networks Ltd. (supra) and, therefore, the argument should be restricted only to the extent of applicability/non-applicability of the said decision of the Co-ordinate Bench. 7. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. In our considered opinion, the Co-ordinate Bench has merely recalled its earlier order in appeal, only to the extent of non-consideration of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngaged in the business of running of ammonia storage terminal, generation of power, dealing in ammonia and trading/investment in shares, mutual funds and derivatives. The assessee has taken over the company RRS Minerals Resources Pvt. Ltd. (RMRPL) which had exclusive Iron ore rights in respect of Iron ore extracted from the mines owned by Messer's M S Gharse Minerals (MSGM). The assessee had paid Rs. 11.30 Crores to MSGM for acquiring long term rights to purchase iron ore extracted by MSGM at a pre-determined rate until the year 2027. The assessee acquired shares of the promoters of RRS and by virtue of 100% holding of RRS, it becomes wholly owned subsidiary. The two shareholders who sold shares of RRS minerals to the assessee were Mr. Bhar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t be recorded as intangible asset nor does it fall within the category or element covered for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. It can only be regarded as investment and the shares are regarded as separate class of the asset. Therefore, there in no question of any claim of depreciation on such class of shares. 12. Now, coming to the facts of the decisions in the case of Shri Adhikari Brothers Television Networks Ltd. (supra), for which limited issue, the order of the Tribunal dated 20/06/2022, was recalled, the facts of the case are that the assessee made payments to Westwind Realtors Private Limited ("WRPL") towards purchase of shares and construction contribution. Depreciation was claimed on such amount. When asked to justify its claim, ....