TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2006-07. In all these years the Tribunal has allowed the depreciation in respect of nonperforming assets i.e. not linked to the recognizing of lease income in respect of the leased assets. The revenue does not point out any reasons as to why the order of the Tribunal for earlier years should not be followed in this Assessment Year.Thus no substantial question of law arises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of the capital gains arising on the transfer of a capital asset on which depreciation has been allowed. Tribunal was right in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) on the issue of set off of profit on sale of depreciable assets of ₹ 1.13 crores against long term capital gain which arose to the assessee on indexation method and also allowing brought forward long term capital gain a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wance of depreciation amounting to ₹ 7,99,343/being depreciation provided on non performing assets? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) on the issue of set off of profit on sale of depreciable assets of ₹ 1.13 crores against long term capital gain which arose to the assessee on indexa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnizing of lease income in respect of the leased assets. The revenue does not point out any reasons as to why the order of the Tribunal for earlier years should not be followed in this Assessment Year. No other greviance on the above issue in the impugned order is ventilated by the appellant. Thus no substantial question of law arises. Accordingly Question (a) is dismissed. Question (b) 4. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 281 ITR 210. Ms. Bharucha, learned Counsel for revenue fairly points out that the revenue's appeal against the order of the Tribunal in the case of Manali Investment (supra) being Income Tax Appeal No. 1658/2012 was dismissed by this Court by order dated 13 March 2013. This Court in Manali Investment (supra) has held that the principle of law laid down by this Court in Ace Builders (P) Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
