GLOBAL e SERVICES P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 9(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1630/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 163019914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K V SAMPAT KUMAR
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, G BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI D.MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.1630/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 GLOBAL E SERVICES P. LTD. .. APPELLANT 297, TARDEO ROAD, WILLIE MANSION, 1 ST FLOOR, OPP BANK OF INDIA, NANACHOWK, MUMBAI PA NO.AAACT 5168 P VS ADDL. CIT, RANGE 9(1) ,. RESPONDENT AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI. APPEARANCES: RAJU SAVLA, FOR THE APPELLANT K.V. SAMPATKUMAR, FOR THE RESPONDENT O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CALLED INTO QUESTION CORRECTNESS OF CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 18 TH JANUARY, 2010, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTIO N 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND: ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO AND ALSO THE CIT(A) BOTH HAVE ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF ` . 86,33,715 ON NEWLY CONSTRUCTED I.T.PARK & CALL CENTR E BUILDINGS WHICH UNDISPUTEDLY ARE WHOLLY OWNED & BEING USED FOR THE BU SINESS PURPOSES, DESPITE FURNISHING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING & INCOME FROM WHICH HAVE BEEN OFFERED & ALSO ASSESSED UNDER BUSINESS INCOME HEAD. I.T.A NO.1630/ MUM/2010 GLOBAL E SERVICES P. LTD 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LI KE THIS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON BUILDINGS IN RESPECT OF I.T .PARK AND CALL CENTRE BUILDINGS, WHICH HAVE BEEN HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE. THE AO ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSETS HAVE NOT BEEN CAPITALIZED AND THE TAX AUDITORS HAVE NOT COMPU TED SUCH DEPRECIATION. IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ASSESSE ES CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL AND WITHOUT A NY SUCCESS. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS SQUAREL Y COVERED BY A COORDINATE BENCHS DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 I N ITA NO.4231/M/2009, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE C O-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS I.E. 2002-03 AND 2004-05, HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY T HE COORDINATE BENCH, AND WE ARE IN CONSIDERED AGREEMENT WITH THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG I.E. ON 4 TH MAY 2011. SD/- (D.MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATED 4 TH MAY, 2011 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),19, MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,9 , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH G, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI