Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 282 - AT - Income TaxPayment of royalty to Govt - addition made on account of undisclosed investment in the expenses under the head of transportation and labor charges for obtaining illegal stock - CIT(A) allowed part relief - Held that:- On vigilant reading of the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Swastik Stone Enterprises (2013 (1) TMI 737 - ITAT DELHI), we observe that in the similar facts and circumstances, the issue of expenses under the head of transportation and labour charges for obtaining illegal stock was remitted to the file of AO for a fresh consideration in accordance with the appellate orders of the District Magistrate, Nainital on this issue. Thus remit the issue to the file of AO to consider the same afresh after examining and considering the appellate orders of the higher authorities on this issue. The matter for adjudication is pending before the Divisional Commissioner, Nainital. Both the authorities have totally relied upon the order of the DM, Nainital. Since the same is pending before the DM, Nainital, the same cannot be said to be final and conclusive. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Disallowance of depreciation on vehicle - whether the depreciation cannot be allowable merely because the assessee has acquired the vehicle during the year but it should have been put to use for business for availing the depreciation - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held that:- The asset was undisputedly purchased and came in the possession of assessee within the financial year relevant to assessment year under consideration in this appeal. The AO has not disputed this fact that the vehicle was purchased during the financial year under consideration for the purpose of business of the assessee and in this situation, it can safely be presumed that the vehicle was put to use and ready for use in the assessee’s business organization and hence, CIT(A) was right in allowing depreciation to the assessee deleting the impugned addition made by the AO - Decided against revenue.
|