2013 (5) TMI 118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1 ORDER Per R. S. Padvekar, JM. In this appeal the revenue has challenged the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A) -IX, Mumbai dated 29.03.2010 for the A.Y. 2006-07. Ground no.1 reads as under:- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in Deleting the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 4,64,36,969/- on Rail Over Bridge although the legal ownership of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sessee has physical possession and right to collect the toll on the said bridge. The Tribunal following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT 239 ITR 775 upheld the order of the Ld. CIT (A) on this issue. We, therefore, following the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case on the identical set of facts and issue dismiss ground no.1. We further f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssee enhanced the loss by adding Rs. 2231.55 lakhs on account of prior period expenditure, which included rebate on toll income of Rs. 76.55. Only issue in this appeal is 'rebate on Toll Income'. The A.O. held that the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting and hence, on the principles of the accrual, the same cannot be allowed. The assessee carried the issue before the Ld. CIT (A) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X