ITO 9(2)-1, MUMBAI V. MWH INDIA P. LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 923/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87902 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASGHAR ZAIN SR
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

, ( ) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B B ENCH, MUMBAI . . , BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A ND SHRI SANJAY GARG,JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO.923/MUM/2010 ( ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2004-05) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-9(2)(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN ROOM NO.225, 2 ND FLOOR, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. / VS. M/S. MWH INDIA PVT. LTD. 133, UDYOG BHAVAN SONAWALA ROAD, GOREGAON (E) MUMBAI-63. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAACA 4613 L ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN - SR. AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NIRAJ SHETH / DATE OF HEARING: 12 / 01 /2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/01/2015 # / O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENU E AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) DATED 23/11/2009 . THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DEPRECIATI ON OF ITA NO.923/M/2010 2 RS.11,35,024/- CHARGED IS INCLUDED IN THE BOOK DEPR ECIATION OF RS.49,42,706/-. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO IGNORED THE FIN DING OF AO THAT THE DEPRECIATION CHARGED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 003-04 WAS FOR RS.48,80, 576/- AND THIS YEAR RS.49,42,706/-. IF THE AMOUNT CHARGED @100% OF RS.11,35,024/- IS INCLUDED IN DEPR ECIATION, IN ADDITION TO NORMAL DEPRECIATION, AS PER COMPANY ACT ON BROUGHT FORWARD WDV THE DEPRECIATION CHARGEABLE TO THE ACCO UNTS WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE THAN RS.49,42,706/- WHICH IS SH OWN IN THE SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE FACT WITH ANY WORKING OR WITH ANY DOCUMENTS. 2. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUB MITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE IMPUGNED DEPRECIATIO N AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. MERELY BECAUSE TH E DEPRECIATION SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WAS SHOWN @ 100% AS PER COM PANYS ACT THAT ITSELF CANNOT BE A GROUND TO DENY THE ELIG IBLE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER PROVISIONS OF I NCOME TAX ACT. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPREC IATION IN THE PRECEDING YEAR @ 100% IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. DE PRECIATION CLAIMED IN BOOKS UNDER COMPANIES ACT DOES NOT AFFEC T COMPUTATION MADE UNDER INCOME TAX ACT. 2.1 THE LD. DR HAS ALSO AGREED ON THIS POINT THAT T HE DEPRECIATION IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY CIT(A ) AS PER PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED POSITION ITA NO.923/M/2010 3 WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A). THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/01/2015. # $ %' & '!( 12/01/2015 % $ SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (SANJAY GARG ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; '! DATED 12/ 01/2015 . ! . ./ JV , SR. PS # # # # $ $$ $ )*+ )*+ )*+ )*+ ,+'* ,+'* ,+'* ,+'* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. -. / THE APPELLANT 2. )/-. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 0 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 0 / CIT 5. +1 )*! , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 2 3 / GUARD FILE. #! #! #! #! / BY ORDER, /+* )* //TRUE COPY// 4 44 4 / 5 5 5 5 (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.