| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2009 SLG 863 2009 SLD 863 (2009) 319 ITR 357 |
Gujarat High Court
TAX APPEAL No. 680 OF 2008, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008
D.A. MEHTA AND BANKIM N. MEHTA, JJ.
Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt and Manish R. Bhatt for the Appellant.
TAX APPEAL No. 680 OF 2008, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008
D.A. MEHTA AND BANKIM N. MEHTA, JJ.
Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt and Manish R. Bhatt for the Appellant.
Commissioner of Income Tax
v.
UTI Bank Ltd.
Law:
Section:
Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Depreciation - Allowance/rate of Where Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal had concurrently found that ownership of assets in hands of assessee-lessor was not disputed and delivery of assets on 30-9-1996 was also not disputed, for purpose of allowing depreciation to lessor, assets in question were to be deemed to have been used in business of lessor latest on 30-9-1996, and, therefore, assessee was entitled to full depreciation [In favour of assessee] Where the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had concurrently found that ownership of assets in the hands of the assessee-lessor was not disputed and delivery of assets on 30-9-1996 was also not disputed, for the purpose of allowing depreciation to the lessor, the assets in question were to be deemed to have been used in the business of the lessor latest on 30-9-1996, and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to full depreciation. Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt and Manish R. Bhatt for the Appellant. JUDGMENT 1. D.A. Mehta, J. - The appellant-Revenue has proposed the following question :- "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 1,18,10,500 made on account of excess depreciation ?" 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue. She has reiterated the observations made by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year. How ever, learned standing counsel could not point out as to how the facts in the present case are different from the facts noted by this court in the case of CIT v.Pinnacle Finance Ltd. [2004] 268 ITR 395 where the High Court has followed the apex court's decision in the case of CIT v. Shaan Finance P. Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 308 . 3. As can be seen from the record that both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have concurrently found that ownership of assets in the hands of the assessee-lessor is not disputed and delivery of assets on September 30, 1996, is also not disputed. In so far as usage of assets is concerned, it has been held that there was no evidence to…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492