TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upholding the order of the CIT(A) records the fact that the parties appearing before it had agreed that the issue of allowing higher depreciation then that claimed in the earlier Assessment Years, was concluded by the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal for the earlier Assessment Year wherein depreciation was allowed only to the extent claimed by the Respondent. We notice that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -3-2013 - J P Devadhar And M S Sanklecha, JJ. For the Appellant: Mr. Vimal Gupta, Sr. Adv with Padma Divakar For the Respondent: Mr. J D Mistri, Sr. Adv with Mr. Raj Darak JUDGEMENT:- In all these Appeals by the Revenue for the Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, following common question has been raised for our consideration: Whether on the facts and in the circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax (Appeal), as well as the Tribunal had set aside the depreciation thrust upon the Respondent in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Mahindra Mills reported in 243 ITR 56 3. However, for the Assessment Year in question, it is the case of the Revenue that explanation 5 added the Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the said Act) w.e.f. 1st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment Year wherein depreciation was allowed only to the extent claimed by the Respondent. The Tribunal by the impugned order held that the assessment for earlier Assessment Years including the written down value of its Plant Machinery were final. Therefore, it would not be possible to reopen the assessment for earlier years and invoke the Explanation 5 to Section 32 of the said Act. Therefore, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
