TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and it is not claiming the deprecation rather revalued the stock at the end of each year and it has followed the same method of valuing the stock at market price or cost whichever is less as the loose tools are stock–in-trade. In our considered opinion the method followed by the assessee is correct considering the actual stock of loose tools as stock-in-trade, which is acceptable method in accordance with accounting Policies. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A), which is confirmed. - Decided against Revenue. - ITA No.358/Coch/2014 - - - Dated:- 10-10-2014 - S/SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN CHANDRA POOJARI, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Satyanarayana For the Respondent : Smt Latha V Kumar, Jr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 88 crores was an amount accumulated over many years and all the provisions were disallowed and added back to the income in the respective years of provision by the assessee itself. The AO noticed that in the Financial Year 2004-05 ₹ 13,71,000/- excess provision for non moving inventory written back was included in the P L account under the head other income as excess provisions written back, which was claimed as allowable expenditure in the statement of total income for the FY 2004-05 since the same was disallowed in the earlier years. Accordingly, no further adjustment was made. Further, on verification of the working of the non moving items for the subsequent years, the AO noticed that the non usable items represent loose tools, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be categorized as plant and machinery and hence they cannot be treated as capital in nature and be allowed 15% depreciation. Accordingly, the CIT(A) accepted the treatment adopted by the assessee of revaluing the inventories as per earlier assessment years and deleted the addition made by the AO. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 4 The ld DR submitted that there is no provision under the I T Rules to allow deprecation at 30% on loose tools and 15% can be allowed. He relied on the order of the AO. 4.1 On the other hand, the ld AR submitted that the assessee had not claimed any depreciation. The assessee actually revalued the loose tools every year considering the life of the loose tools of 3 to 4 years and considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
