TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e given depreciation as "plant" – the order of the Tribunal cannot be upheld - Decided in favour of revenue. - TAX APPEAL NO. 1394 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 2-12-2014 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. K.J.THAKER, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE JUDGEMENT Per: K S Jhaveri: 1. This Tax Appeal u/s. 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is filed against the order dated 23.12.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inery. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has preferred appeal before ITAT vide ITA No.1494/Ahd/2000. By impugned order dated 23.12.2005, the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue and has allowed the claim of the assessee and depreciation @ 33.33% was allowed as against the 20% allowed by the Assessing Officer. Hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said order reads under: 3. Mr.M.J.Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondentassessee, has conceded to the position that in so far as question No.1 is concerned, it stands answered against the assessee in light of decision in case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anand Theatres, [2000] 244 ITR 192 (SC). 4. Hence, question No.1 is answered in the negative i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
